The Science of Sport

A minimalism/barefoot fad and inconsequential footstrikes?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:49:00 +0000

Minimalism as a fad and inconsequential footstrikes?

Two articles of interest, both connected to the barefoot running/minimalist shoe debate, and I promised on Twitter that I'd give a few more detailed thoughts.

"It appears this fad is pretty much over" - minimalist shoe sales decline

The first was this article, in Runnersworld, which quotes an industry watcher as saying that the minimalist trend is over. This is based on the reported stat that in the first quarter of 2013, running shoe sales grew in the high single figures (8%, perhaps), driven largely by sales of motion control shoes (25%) and stability shoes (10% increase). This overcame a drop in the sale of minimalist shoes, which "declined in the low teens" (so let's call it a drop of 13-14%, perhaps), and which now makes up only 4% of total running shoe sales. The industry watcher concludes "it appears this fad is pretty much over".

An interesting statistic, particularly when you consider that in previous years, it was minimalist shoes that were the fastest growing segment, while the stability and motion-control categories were stagnant or falling.

So, a reversal of sorts, but one that should not be surprising, given how overhyped the barefoot movement had been post "Born to Run". Also of note is that the end of the article makes mention of a shift away from the barefoot style minimalist shoes towards more conventional shoes that are lighter and lower to the ground than in years past. This may be the lasting legacy of the 'barefoot bubble', because it has driven the realization that the bulky, heavy and excessively cushioned shoes were not necessary and probably didn't do what they purported to. The shoe industry as a whole has adjusted its paradigm, and that is certainly a good thing, in general.

The end result, once the dust settles further, is that we've been pulled more towards the middle, which is always a good place to be when it comes to the complex physiology and biomechanics of individuals. This is an oft-repeated point here on the site, I've said it too many times, but the notion that one solution would work for everyone is clearly false, and one of a few current examples of trying to swing the pendulum from one (wrong) extreme to the other equally wrong extreme (the 10,000 hours vs genes, and low-carbohydrate diet debates are the other two).

An expanding bubble and a sustainable niche

At the New Balance South African launch of their minimalist shoe in about 2009, I remember sitting in the audience, and a journalist asked the question of whether minimalism might just be a fad? My response to that was that it would not die out like a fad, because it was clear that many people were achieving great success in the barefoot shoes, and that this group, however small, would sustain the market segment. Whether or not it continued to grow at the rates it was back then would depend on a) the relative success people achieved in minimalist/barefoot shoes, and b) the strength of the scientific evidence and how well it was communicated to runners.

It's clear that now, admittedly only 4 years on, that the scientific evidence has not provided a compelling enough case to drive the companies into an even bigger push for minimalism, but has helped inform the shift to ligher, flatter traditional shoes. The evidence is, at best, ambiguous, and the field still needs a long-term, prospective injury study. The unanswered questions of 2009 remain unanswered, and a few tenuous links between loading rate and injury prevalence based on footstrike will not be enough to change the direction of a multi-billion dollar shoe industry, which has too much inertia for the anecdotes of a few (however outspoken) success stories to knock off course.

The former requirement, people's success, is a more interesting phenomenon. I do believe that the hype of minimalism, driven by the almost evangelical (and irresponsible, I have to add) volunteer sales job being done by many of those who had succeeded, spawned a movement of "barefoot/paleo" runners, many of whom were destined to fail. Why? Because they may simply not be suited to minimalist running in the first place, and perhaps this is a group who needs shoes as much as the successful minimalist runners do not.

That's probably a radical idea for some, but as much as we have heard arguments for how 'evil' the shoe industry was for advocating that everyone needed cushioning, air, gel, pro-moderater, roll bars and the like, I wonder if any have considered that when you swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and advocate barefoot/minimalism, you are doing exactly the same thing? The reality is that some people may well belong at the extremes, but many more belong somewhere in the middle, and there has been little nuance in the discussion.

Perhaps the market figures are beginning to reflect that nuance, with the realization that not everyone will succeed without the cushioning provided by traditional shoes. Just a thought. The point is, the market was expanding so rapidly that the uptake of barefoot and minimalist running was bound to claim its fair share of casualties.

The trouble is we don't know these numbers. What proportion of runners have tried and failed, compared to those who have succeeded? Given the downturn in sales of minimalist shoes, and that only 4% of the market is minimalist shoes, I'm guessing that the latter group is smaller than the former - more fail than succeed. The problem is that those who try and fail slink off to the store and go back to traditional shoes, whereas those who succeed become outspoken, leading to a large reporting bias.

I can, at this point, pre-empt the response to these injured runners and minimalism failures: "Those people obviously didn't reduce their training enough, and allow their feet and bodies to adapt to the new style". And of course, this is likely to be true in many of these instances. Running injuries are caused by running - there is a threshold for injury, and when it is exceeded, the runner breaks down.

The point is that the shoes were marketed as a way to reduce the injury risk. That is, they would change the injury threshold, so that a person could do the same training as before without injury. And yes, it would be unreasonable to expect a person to go straight from traditional shoes into minimalist shoes, maintain the same volume, and get the promoted upside. So there was an inevitable period of 'compromise' where the runner would need to drop training volumes and invest in learning the skill.

My problem with this is three-fold. First, there's no guarantee of an upside to begin with. For some individuals, it works, without question. For others, it may not, and for reasons we don't understand, some people may be incapable of running without traditional shoes, regardless of how long they take. There is little recognition of the fact that some people may be unable to learn the skill, or adapt, but the tool was never to blame, only ever its user.

Second, the sacrifice to succeed may be unreasonable. You have to ask whether it is reasonable to expect a person to reduce themselves to beginner status for months, when there is no guaranteed benefit, a very large potential downside or risk, and when the alternative - cut training volume by 20% and get stronger in the supporting muscles - might be equally effective within weeks? I don't believe this is reasonable, and so for some, it may not be a viable alternative, given questions of leverage and time.

And third, and the reason I think it has been irresponsibly promoted is because you can't advocate a change and not understand the dosage for it. A few months back, a study was published where the scientists prescribed barefoot running over 10 weeks using the guidelines of a minimalist shoe maker to the letter. The result was that 10 weeks later, every single one of the runners had indications of stress fractures in their feet, some with full blown stress fractures. To that, I recall the response was that the "advice was not conservative enough". This is the ever-shifting goal post of barefoot running advice, and to me, the point is that we just don't know who succeeds, or how much (or how little) training they require. That's why it's irresponsible for the zealous few who succeed (at most 4%, remember) to be so vocal about it. They change their names to "Barefoot XYZ" and drag everyone with them, blaming the end-user for their failures. It's just not a viable product, and sales figures support that.

That said, it's clear that there are people, perhaps many, who have succeeded and they should continue to run in minimalist shoes. I count myself as one of them, for the record, lest it seem that this is an attack on minimalism. I've nothing against the concept, just its advocacy and the obnoxious way it is pushed on people (as I feel about carbohydrate hunters). I tried every extreme, from straight barefoot (did Mount Kilimanjaro barefoot, just to check!) to flat racing shoes, and I think I've found a balance that works for me. I would not advocate it to anyone. Rather stick to education, and let people discover what works for them. As for the industry, they've recognized the shift, and responded to it with lighter, more flexible shoes, and that's definitely a good thing. For most people.

"Neither footstrike is advantageous" - a study on footstrike and injury

The second interesting piece of news was Amby Burfoot's piece on a study just done in the US Army, where researchers tracked injury prevalence and performance in 342 recruits. The Army often produce very important studies on injury, because potential confounding factors and risk factors for injury are so much easier to control effectively. The study is being presented at the American College of Sports Medicine meeting in a few weeks, and so should be in a journal soon. Then it will be possible to review more substantially, but a surface reading shows some interesting findings to discuss for now.

It found no difference in performance between the heel-strikers (87% of the group) and the non-heel strikers (that is, mid and forefoot), and no difference in injury prevalence or severity (measured as days off training, as is typically done in the field). The trend was for the non-heel strikers to report more injuries, in fact, which is interesting because the last few years have seen a rise in the "heel striking is bad" argument.

The link between barefoot running and footstrike, incidentally, is that very early on in the evolution of the barefoot running idea, it was proposed that it's not necessarily what you wear on your feet that matters, but how you land. This was based on the observation that when barefoot, most runners adopted a forefoot landing. Ergo, forefoot/midfoot is better, heel-striking to be avoided. I won't point out how circular that logic is, but I will make the following points, which I believe explains the Army study results.

First, not everyone responds the same way to a change in footwear. Some people, when running barefoot, continue to heelstrike. These people show enormously high loading rates and impact forces, and so every (admittedly theoretical) link we have with injury says that they will have increased risk of injury when barefoot.

Second, the interesting thing is that when you put these people in shoes, their loading rates and impact forces come down to the same level of a barefoot runner landing on the forefoot/midfoot. To give you some numbers, they go from about 400 BW/s to 100 BW/s. The runners who one would consider "good" barefoot runners because they land on the midfoot are at 80 - 100 BW/s. Peak ground reaction forces look similar.

The point is that shoes make a huge difference to this risk factor, and they do this for a very particular subset of runners only - it's only the runners who are heel-strikers when barefoot who see this benefit. When you put a midfoot striker in shoes, they show basically no change compared to when barefoot. And that is interesting, because it points to a benefit of shoes, at least with respect to the narrow link between kinetics (forces) and injury.

Third, and most interesting, is that in these runners, the ground reaction forces and loading rates come down despite even greater heel-striking than when barefoot. In other words, you put them in cushioned shoes, they land even further back, with a more dorsiflexed ankle, and their force profile improves relative to when barefoot. It improves so much that they are actually similar to barefoot runners, and the foot-strike doesn't matter.

We know this because we've just finished a study looking at this exact thing - a PhD student of mine, Nicholas Tam, has just submitted a paper looking at this individual variability as a key to the shoe prescription debate, and we believe it would explain why foot-strike doesn't matter in the shod, but not barefoot, condition. This, like the benefit of barefoot running, has probably been oversold.

Once Nic's first paper is published, I'll go into much more detail about what we did and found, but the key points are:

There is huge individual variation in the biomechanics response to barefoot running. Some people go in totally the "wrong direction" with respects to the kinetics that are supposedly linked to injury
Those individuals, the barefoot heel-strikers who don't seem to adjust at the ankle to help absorb landing forces, may be unsuited to barefoot running, but benefit from cushioning provided by shoes, to the point that they are similar to barefoot runners or midfoot strikers, shod or not
The footstrike doesn't affect the injury risk factors in shoes, only when barefoot

So, returning to the Army study, there are of course many factors other than footstrike related to injury. But the way that the footstrike has been overplayed as a cause is perhaps exposed by this finding, and it can be explained anyway as the possible beneficial effect of shoe cushioning.

Ultimately, injuries will be caused by exceeding a threshold of adaptation, and footwear, biomechanics and factors like flexibility and muscle strength may contribute to this threshold. It can be shifted, higher or lower, but not in a manner that is yet predictable or formulaic, because it's too complex to link A to B. The Army study reveals, through the lack of a finding, that the paradigm of A to B is over-simplified, and the drop in sales of minimalist shoes further suggests that we're now seeing the pendulum settle somewhere towards the middle, away from the extremes, which do tend to embrace over-simplified paradigms and theories.

Quite where this leaves us is difficult to say. It's not attractive to say "each to his own" and that we should embrace complexity and nuance. "Born to Run" sold well, in part, because of its extremism, just like the low-carb diet and the 10,000 hour concept work when they exclude every other reasonable possibility. It's go big, go alone, or go home science. It's also wrong.

In the shoe debate, we still need the long-term prospective study on injuries, and I'd still argue that everyone should try "less shoe", in the sense that more flexible and lighter is probably better. At worst, it becomes a training modality. At best, a new way to run.

Ross

Pacing, fatigue and the brain. Lessons London taught us

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 04 May 2013 12:16:00 +0000

Pacing, fatigue and the brain. Lessons from London

I owe you two posts, promised a few weeks ago while I was attending the London Marathon and presenting at its associated Medical Conference. Time and other work commitments prevented that, and soon I'm off to London again, this time for Sevens Rugby and another conference. More on that, in the weeks to come, but let me combine those previous two posts into one, and share some thoughts, as well as my presentation on Fatigue and the Brain from the conference.

I realize I'm well off the news timelines as far as London goes, but the race, co-incidentally, did a lot to provide context to the question of pacing and the limits to human performance (that is, fatigue), so it's a lead in to the presentation which is at the bottom.

London Marathon - pacing precision

First, London. Won by Tsegay Kebede, the time of 2:06:04 the slowest since 2007, the race was notable for an attritional second half that saw the lead change five or six times, clear breaks come back and eventually, the athlete who died least, possibly because of a stitch at around 25km which prevented him from responding to the early surges, came through to win.

The story is in the 5km splits shown below. Kebede's splits are shown in blue, while those of Emmanuel Mutai, who finished second, are in red.

The first 10km in London is always fast, but this year was particularly quick. The result was that even with a slight drop in pace from 10km to 20km, the split at halfway was 61:34. That's not necessarily a disaster, but it was constructed "badly" in the sense that it was a little too fast early and was produced slowing down. Interestingly enough, I spoke to one of the pacemakers at the Official after party, and he said that they were asking for the pace to be slowed, but Emmanuel Mutai was driving them to go faster. He said that a 62:00 at halfway would have been perfect.

But, 61:34 it was, and then the race's ultimate slow time was created, because the pace was actually lifted. A 14:30 split (1:59:28 marathon pace, so a significant ramp up in pace) from 20km to 25km broke the race open, and from then on, it was always going to be a matter of survival. 14:49 for the next 5km is what saw the big time gaps appear, and Kebede was actually dropped, later blaming a stitch for his inability to follow that pace. That's where their lines part company in the graph above - 19 seconds was the gap at 30km, because Kebede dropped off faster and was outside the top four.

At the front, Emmanuel Mutai, then Biwott and Abshero and Lilesa, and then Mutai again, all took turns in the lead, making what appeared to be breaks, but they were reeled in, despite a progressively dropping pace. When you see a lead that keeps changing even though the overall pace is getting slower and slower, then it means that leads are being established not because of breaks, but rather because of failures, and that in turn means it's a matter of time before the wheels fall off in a major way.

That happened to Lilesa, then Biwott (they lost 1:05 and 2:35 in the final 7km), but Kebede was able to hang onto something like a respectable pace over the final 7km. You'll see in the graph that from 25km to 35km, he was slower than Mutai, losing time. But from 35km to 40km he clawed some of it back, and then the big change happened in the final 2km, where Mutai really did fall apart.

Mutai's final 2.2km were run in 7:46, and that's where a lead of 28 seconds was turned into a deficit of 29 seconds by the finish line! For comparison, Priscah Jeptoo, who won the women's race, covered this segment in 7:23.

So, the men really did pay for the fast early start, but more than that, it was the attack at 20km, off that fast start, that did the damage. It remains a fact that only once in history has a man run both halves in a marathon in under 62 minutes. That was Patrick Makau, who broke 62 min twice on route to his current world record. Others have run negative splits with a 61:xx second half, but the London race highlighted just how precise the pace needs to be before it becomes 'suicidal', at least for record purposes. Racing is a different story, of course.

The physiology of pacing strategy, and the limit to performance

That then leads into a discussion of pacing, fatigue and the limits to performance. At the London Marathon conference, a fellow speaker, Doug Casa, and I had some great discussions about athletics, and while we agree on many things, one that we diverged on was the possibility of a two-hour marathon. Doug firmly believes it is imminent, and that he'll see it soon (Doug also believes women will go under 4-minutes for the mile soon, which is absolutely not possible in this lifetime).

My opinion is different - I told him that unless he can figure out how to cryogenically freeze himself and watch London in maybe 80 years from now, he has no hope of seeing that happen! Even then, I'm not convinced.

The basis for my saying that is at least partly found in the graph above. It shows us that even the very best fail when they don't get the pacing right, and that means they are right on the limit of performance. If you consider the pace in London, you had 61:34 at halfway. That was set up by 14:23 and 14:33 splits for the first 10km. Too fast, but by how much? Perhaps 10 seconds per five kilometers, so we are talking a margin for error of about 2 seconds per kilometer being the difference between a complete blowout of the world's best runners, which reduces 2:05 runners to running 17:30 5km pace, and maintaining the pace to run something under 2:05.

Now, if that is what happens when they run at 2:03 pace, and then surge to a 2:00 pace, imagine how much longer we will have to wait to see a runner capable of running every single 5km segment at 2:00 pace? It is, for now, inconceivable that anyone can run 14:30 per 5km eight times consecutively. In London 2013, that happened twice and it broke one of the best fields ever assembled into splinters.

Remember, you didn't have one runner fail at 61:34 pace with a 14:30 surge. It was everyone. Maybe seven or eight of the best 15 men in the world pushed their physiology over the edge with that racing strategy, and not one was able to come through it without some damage. Kebede was the best survivor, but even he "limped" home with a 64:28 second half (and final 10km of around 32:00). A 2-hour marathon is nowhere near imminent, it's a long way away, and breaking the race down into its component paces is one way to show that.

The other is to recognize that a runner who is capable of running back-to-back half marathons in 59:59 will be a guy capable of running a single half marathon in about 57 minutes. Currently, a 59 min half marathon runner can hit 62 min in a half and maintain the pace. So, until there is a 57 min half marathon runner, don't hold your breath. And of course, a 56 min half marathon runner is capable of running back-to-back 10km races in about 26:30. That is a runner who would be able to run a 10km in about 25:40. So when we start seeing 10km and 21km times drop to 25:40 and 57 minutes, then I'll agree with Doug and the other 2-hour marathon advocates!

What pacing means

Back to pacing, which leads us to the question of how that precision is achieved? What physiological basis is there for such a "fragile" line between optimal and 'failure'? What is the body responding to in order to slow a runner down when the difference between holding the pace and crashing is as small as 1% too fast early on?

The theory is that we pace ourselves because we are selecting the optimal exercise intensity that allows us to:

use our available energy at the optimal rate, not too fast or too slow
gain heat slowly enough that we'll finish, but not so slowly that we aren't performing at a high enough intensity
accumulate metabolites at a low enough rate to not be overwhelmed by them
meet oxygen requirements of muscle, brain and other tissues
compete with other runners, the clock or whatever other motivational factors impact on performance

Pacing, then, is the physiological equivalent of sticking to a budget. There is a plan, one which we are not fully aware of, but which covers all aspects of physiology, every system in the body. It then manages our intensity, by adjusting how much muscle we are able to activate (we measure this as EMG, as you will see in the presentation below), so that we don't deplete reserves or accumulate limiting heat or metabolites. Doing that would result in, in order:

A failed performance because we'd reach a critical level of hyperthermia, or energy depletion, or metabolite accumulation (or any other factor, depending on the context of exercise, see slides below) before the finish line. That's called a bad day out, and it happens because performance is ultimately going to be limited by one of more physiological systems. Pacing aims to ensure that this never happens
Bodily harm. In theory, it is possible to push so far beyond those performance limits that we run ourselves into physiological trouble. The line for this is higher than it is for performance - we would fail at exercise before our bodies fail, but it does happen.

In fact, a really good opinion insight on this has just been written by pacing researchers led by Zig St Clair Gibson and Carl Foster, and it's called "Crawling to the Finish Line: Why do Endurance Runners Collapse? : Implications for Understanding of Mechanisms Underlying Pacing and Fatigue". I recommend it as a good discussion of this very topic

The presentation - pacing, performance limits and fatigue

As for the rest, they are details. Fascinating details, of course (in my biased opinion), and they're the subject of the presentation I gave in London, which you can see below. My focus is on heat, because that's a great model to illustrate the difference between a regulated system and a limited system. In exercise physiology, both exist, but understanding performance regulation is the recognition that pacing has a physiological purpose, and that we don't 'dumbly' run to the point of collapse.

I also devote quite a bit of time in the talk to some really interesting studies by Amman et al, who have shown that the body is trying to defend peripheral muscle function, and that if you block Type IV afferents, you can play havoc with pacing strategies and those muscle properties.

These presentations require talking, and so they may not quite make sense when being viewed like this. The gaps can always be filled, however, and hopefully this introduces the concepts of pacing and fatigue and how various factors, including motivation, competition, emotional state, and of course the various physiological inputs affect our performance limits and pacing.

Here is that talk, enjoy!

Ross

More reading and forthcoming attractions!

And, for some more reading on this, two reviews I wrote, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine:

And here's that paper from St Clair Gibson et al, published just last month: Crawling to the finish line

And finally, as mentioned, I'm off to the UK again next week, first to join the SA Sevens team for the season ending tournament, and then at the invitation of the English Rugby Football Union for a symposium on talent ID and development. I'll share what I can, when I can.

Ross

London 2013 Marathon: Conference, race and upcoming coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:18:00 +0000

London 2013: Back to the roads for one of the great races, and a scientific conference

I write this from London, sitting in a hotel overlooking the Tower Bridge and the halfway mark in Sunday's London Marathon. I am here for that Marathon, at the invitation of the Marathon Medicine 2013 Conference, and will be presenting on Saturday at their annual marathon conference.

The conference programme is short, but specific to the event, and looks very interesting, so I'm looking forward to it. The programme is as follows:

FIT TO DROP: INFECTION AND IMMUNITY IN THE ENDURANCE RUNNER Professor Neil Walsh PhD, Director Extremes Research Group, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

EFFICACY OF POST-EXERCISE COLD WATER IMMERSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR ATHLETE RECOVERY AND ADAPTATION Dr Warren Gregson PhD, Senior Physiologist, Football Performance & Science Department, Aspire Academy, Doha, Qatar and Reader in Applied in Exercise Physiology, The Football Exchange & Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

RICE, PRICE OR POLICE? OPTIMAL LOADING AND ICE IN INJURY MANAGEMENT Dr Chris Bleakley PhD, Lecturer in Sports Studies, Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster, Ulster, UK

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RACE MEDICINE

EXERTIONAL HEAT STROKE AND MASS MEDICAL FACILITIES: IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE AND COORDINATING CARE
Dr Doug Casa PhD, Professor, Department of Kinesiology, Korey Stringer Institute, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, USA

FATIGUE, INVISIBLE BARRIERS, PHYSIOLOGICAL LIMITS AND PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF THE BRAIN IN PERFORMANCE PHYSIOLOGY Dr Ross Tucker PhD, Honorary Senior Lecturer, UCT Exercise Science and Sports Medicine Unit, and Consultant Scientist, Sports Science Institute of South Africa, SA

I will certainly put my own presentation on the website once I've given it (perhaps Monday or Tuesday, with some notes to explain it), and I'll do my best to bring you the highlights from the other speakers.

The London marathon experience - anyone offering race coverage?

Then of course, being here at the invitation of the London Marathon, I'm fortunate enough to be staying in the official race hotel, so it has been a great opportunity to take in the race build-up. Unfortunately I missed the elite men's press conference earlier this week, but it's been building towards Saturday, and should be a great race. And I'm not sure exactly how I'll be watching the race on Sunday - if anyone from the media is reading this, and you have a tip on how to get onto the official race convoy where it is possible to watch the entire race live, let me know! I'll forever be in your debt!

Speaking of, if anyone is here from the media, it would be great to meet, put a face to a name from all our interaction in the last few years, so even if I can't follow the race live, let me know and perhaps we can share a warm English beer in coming days!

London 2013: Men preview

As for the race itself, as usual, London has gathered the world's best. They have nine sub-2:05 men in the race, and that doesn't even include the current Olympic Champion. Gold, silver and bronze from the Games are here, three former winners including the last three champions. The world record holder, second, fourth and sixth fastest in history are in the race, and of course Geoffrey Mutai (4th on that list) has the fastest ever recorded time, though it was in Boston with a howling tailwind.

Here are the big 10:

1 Wilson Kipsang KEN 2:03:42 (defending champion)

2 Patrick Makau KEN 2:03:38 (world record holder)

3 Geoffrey Mutai KEN 2:04:15 (world marathon majors champion)

4 Ayele Abshero ETH 2:04:23

5 Tsegaye Kebede ETH 2:04:38 (2010 champion)

6 Emmanuel Mutai KEN 2:04:40 (2011 champion)

7 Feyisa Lilesa ETH 2:04:52

9 Stanley Biwott KEN 2:05:12

11 Deressa Chimsa ETH 2:05:42

12 Stephen Kiprotich UGA 2:07:20 (Olympic champion)

Then the other sub-plot is the "debut" of Mo Farah in London, though he will run only to halfway which has been requested at around 61:45. That is world record schedule, though I would be surprised if it comes off.

Whenever a field this strong is together, and the incentive to win is large, then the racing tends to compromise the overall pace. Last year, for instance, the pace through halfway was a decent 62:12, and then Wilson Kipsang, inspired perhaps by the crossing of Tower Bridge, attacked and dropped a 14:09 5km split which destroyed his rivals but also put paid to any chances of the record, though he held on for an incredibly impressive time of 2:04:44. The real story was the time gaps his surge created, and a strong field (London always is) was minutes behind, with the best in the world staggering home. One example was Abel Kirui, one of the only men to track Kipsang's surge, who covered the final 2.2km in 8:33 to finish sixth.

The other possible scenario is that the pacemakers will set the race up perfectly, perhaps all the way to 30km, but then the games begin and nobody will want to take up a world record pace when accompanied by five or six other men. The result may be that it drops off in preparation for the final 5km.

Either way, the point is, if the men race, then the record will usually (though not always) be lost in the battle. Let's hope that Sunday produces a similarly exciting battle and with fast times.

The weather is often a factor. I can tell you that having arrived yesterday, I went for a run along the last few kilometers of the marathon route, and have just returned to the hotel having done the same, and the final 8km have been into a stiff wind. Unless that dies down or changes direction, it will also prevent records. Temperature wise, it's been perfect but that wind along the Thames as the race heads towards Big Ben will cost valuable time.

Regardless, with a field that strong, it will be a great race, and I look forward to bringing you more over the weekend! Right now, off to the official London Marathon Reception function.

From London,

Ross

Prepare for Sunday's action by reliving last year's race here!

We believe in the spirit of the marathon and condemn the acts of violence in Boston

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:37:00 +0000

As sports fans, especially of the marathon, the events in Boston saddened and shocked us. Our thoughts are with all those runners, spectators, supporters, and others who were affected by this act of violence.

Yesterday, our race report was submitted to our email subscription service hours before the bomb blasts occurred. By the time we heard the news, the emails had already been delivered to many of your inboxes. What is normally entirely appropriate language to describe the race development suddenly became entirely inappropriate after the events at the finish, and many of you wrote to us wondering how we could get it so wrong.

It was unfortunate timing on top of already sad and unfortunate events at the race. Had we been able to stop the delivery of the post via email, we would have, however regrettably the emails had already been delivered and read.

Our apologies for what seemed like insensitive language in the race report. We hope you understand we were not being insensitive, and that the post was written and published well before the events of the day.

A historical marathon has been marred by the actions of the perpetrators, but, as passionate fans and believers in the power of sport, we are fully confident that the spirit of the race and the marathon will continue to unite and inspire.

Thank you as always for your kind support, and please continue to join us in extending our sympathies and condolences to everyone caught up in this terrible sequence of events.

Jonathan Dugas & Ross Tucker

Boston Marathon 2013: Live splits, projections and commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:03:00 +0000

Our thoughts are with everyone affected by the tragic events at the Boston Marathon

The 2013 Boston Marathon has been marred by tragic and senseless acts of violence. Below you will find our race report, which is written live and in real-time during the elite men's and women's races. During that event, we used terms that are normal for use during sporting events, but which have, in the light of the later tragedy, become insensitive and entirely inappropriate. We would like to emphasize that this post was written many hours before the tragedy, and we regret the delivery of the post by email and circulation. We have edited the below to remove those words that now may be deemed insensitive.

Our hearts and thoughts go out to the many runners, supporters, the BAA and other race and city of Boston personnel who were affected by this act of violenceA historical event has been marred by the actions of the perpetrators, but we are fully confident that the spirit of the race and the marathon will continue to unite and inspire us.

Boston 2013: Splits, projections and in-race commentary

Welcome to our coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon.

Below you'll find splits and thoughts as the races unfolded. They were won by Ethiopia's Lelisa Desisa (2:10:22) and Kenya's Rita Jeptoo (2:26:25). Both were tactical and overall quite slow, with dramatic changes in the second half. Enjoy the race as it happened!

Ross

Men's Race

Additional thoughts:

From 15km to 20km, the men have resembled a training group on an easy running day. The field is entirely African, with the Ethiopians most prominent at the front. Gebremariam and Lilesa are their big dangers, but Merga is also in the group of nine. So too are all the favored Kenyans.

At 20km, the elite field has swelled because of the comparatively easy running. The pace really has dropped and allowed those athletes back in. This is building to an huge surge from 20 to 30km as the hills hit the field.

At 24km, Watson of Canada is leading, and the pace has been lifted as a result. The halfway split is slow, however, and projects a 2:09:48, and so we can expect a huge second half. As with the women, look for a massive negative split. I'd predict a second half in the range of 63 min, and a 2:07 to win today. Micah Kogo, making his marathon debut, is the 10km specialist and must be enjoying the way the race has developed.

Just before 30km, the men's race has been shaken up dramatically. We have helicopter shots of it so we don't know what is happening...typical. It is being reported that Dixon Chumba of Kenya who has done the damange. At the bottom of the hills, 11 men were together, and it has been thinned to two. Chumba and Desisa of Ethiopia are clear. The field is fragmented behind, but the hills may help keep them in contact.

The group has in fact reformed, at 30km, and we have six men together, with Merga just off the back. That 5km segment from 25km to 30km, taking in the Newton Hills, was covered in 15:28, but the damage was really, at least from the helicopter shot, done in about 1km.

The men have once again settled into a pretty conservative pace. The group of six are not attacking one another anymore. The final 5km will be dramatic. They really have been jogging for much of the race. We are so used to seeing paced efforts, it's almost funny to watch the shut down as they build to that surge. I just hope they show the attacks because they will be incredibly aggressive.

The 5km split from 30 to 35km were covered in 15:59, incredibly slow. Anyone bet that the final 5km could well be done in under 14 minutes?

Yes, as expected, we have missed the start of the surges in the men's race. Well done Boston Marathon TV production, excellent decision to finally get rid of the split screen at the very moment that one of the race's decisive surges came. Outstanding.

And of course, we will now wait to see all the top 10 women come in while a good men's race happens somewhere on the streets of Boston. And people wonder about the waning popularity of road running...

Right, back on it. At 40km, there are three men together. Gebremariam, Desisa and Kogo. The two favorites and the debutant with the most recent track pedigree. No attacks among the three in the last five minutes. I'm surprised that the field has been narrowed to only three at this pace, which really is slow (2:10 projected).

Desisa has it. A break with less than one kilometer to go first shed Kogo and then Gebremariam as they turned left into the final straight. Kogo recovered to get second, with Gebremariam in a cramping third place. The winning time was 2:10:21, slow for a relatively cool day given what we have become accustomed to seeing, but a refreshing tactical race.

Women's Race

Additional thoughts:

At 20km, Caballero of Colombia is well clear of the chase pack. The commentators seem to think that her lead is potentially decisive. I'm not sure if they are trying to hype it up for the viewers, but it's very obvious that the pack have permitted her the lead. The pace from 15km to 20km has not even increased, which tells that the gap is there because the elite women don't care to keep it down and are clearly not interested. The break is clearly under control. Commentary is missing a good race.

Now Ana Felix of Portugal has assumed the lead. Similarly, she is only there by "permission" of the elite who I would expect will run the second half in between 70 and 71 minutes. Any lead less than about 4 minutes at this stage is not enough. Projected winning time at this stage is 2:28 but the race will be won in 2:25, and the winner will come from the chase pack.

Ana Felix's lead continues to grow, with 12km to run it is about 1 minute. The elite field have yet to show any desire to attack one another, perhaps waiting for the hills to end. Her lead with 10km to run will about one minute, and one would expect the top women, attacking one another, to cover that in around 33 to 34 minutes. Can Felix run a 34 and win? Time will tell. Strange that none of the chasing women have shown intent.

Felix's gap is dropping. With 7km to go it is just over 1 minute. Major intrigue, the elite field requires 10 seconds per kilometer to make the catch. The last 5km for Felix was slower (17:42, so 3:32/km), but it did include Heartbreak Hill. The real action is behind, where Jeptoo has taken the lead and is driving hard. As I expected, once the elite women woke from their slumber, the gap could fall dramatically. You can expect 3:15 to 3:20 for the elites, and so Felix's 3:32/km will not be enough.

With 5km to go, it's pretty clear that the catch will happen. The gap has been cut by almost a minute in the last 4 or 5 km.

Jeptoo has won the race between 35km and 40km with some impressive running. Having assumed the lead, she stretched it out and dropped first Cherop and then Hailu of Ethiopia. Her lead is growing all the time, thanks to a 16:56 last 5km.

The Kenyan success genetic controversy

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Kenyan success: Genes, method and controversies

Earlier today, I tweeted two articles of interest tackling the question of whether Kenya's incredible distance running success is genetic or training-related.

The first article, from the Atlantic, takes the genetic view, while the response from a Kenyan paper is quite offended at the suggestion, and attributes their success to method, which includes the usual combination of training, altitude, system, etc. I won't summarize the articles here, but would encourage you to have a read on what is quite a controversial topic.

I recall this controversy from a year or two ago, when I wrote some articles about innate ability. Then, my specific purpose was to address the fallacy that anyone could become a champion with 10,000 hours of practice, and the discussion moved into one of genetic factors that predispose individuals to success in sport (or activities like chess and darts, for that matter).

I received some fairly angry emails, I think from Kenyan readers, who take offense at the suggestion that their runners may have some genetic advantage as long-distance runners. I think much of this controversy comes from the all too typical error that people make when they polarize a debate into an "either/or" situation, and fail to recognize how complex factors must interact with one another. In my opinion, the issue is pretty straight-forward, and I've not really fully understood why it evokes such hostile responses. My brief take on this issue is below.

Upcoming review - more on the science of the genes and why studies have thus far failed to find "the gene"

While I'm on the subject, I will soon have a review article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine on this very subject. It was invited by the journal as a follow up to a review I had published last year, called "What makes champions? A review of the relative contribution of genes and training to sporting success".

On that occasion, I co-wrote with Prof Malcolm Collins, a geneticist, and we tried to explain the essential role of BOTH genes and training on ultimate sporting success. The 10,000 hour concept holds little water when evaluated scientifically, but is a nice way to get people fired up to train more. Similarly, genetics cannot explain sporting success entirely. To disregard either is to provide a false explanation and the ultimate conclusion is that training should be defined as the realization of genetic potential. Alone, each is insufficient, and it is the right training applied to the optimal genotype that produces world champion caliber performance.

For this latest review article, I was asked to delve more deeply into the issue, and the question of Kenyan running is just too intriguing to pass up. So, I teamed up with Prof Collins again, and this time added another colleague, Dr Jordan Santos, who did his PhD studying North African and Spanish elite runners, and is now looking into East African running physiology.

We wrote a paper that has just been accepted, and once it is available, I will certainly describe it in more detail and send out links for those who are interested. The paper describes the current science of the genes in East Africans, and we explain why those studies have thus far failed to find the performance gene. It is a technical and conceptual failure, one where the research has, in our opinion, looked in the wrong place for the wrong thing. We propose a theory for Kenyan success that IS genetic, but which is not unique to Kenya, and which does not in any way exclude the method and system they can rightly credit with their success. More on that soon.

Today, briefly, and since it is topical thanks to the above-linked articles, this is a summary of that review paper, which represents our thinking based on where the science of this matter stands today:

Unlikely a unique gene

First, and perhaps most important, if you are looking for a specific gene or gene variant that Kenyans possess, and which no other athletes have, then you may be be looking for a long, long time. It is improbable that a) a single gene variant will explain something as complex as running physiology, and b) only one population in group in the world will possess this unique variant. That said, until the entire genome is understood, it remains possible that a variant or combination of gene variants unique to a population in East Africa is the 1% difference between a 2:04 marathon and the 2:06 we see from elsewhere. But it is unlikely, in my estimation.
Instead, if there is a genetic basis for performance, it will be polygenic (think hundreds, if not thousands of genes), which exist in the optimal combination for an individual to be predisposed for sporting success. Crucial to realize is that this individual could be found anywhere in the world. Among the billions of people in it, there will be individuals with this 'endurance favored genotype' in every population. There may be more in some populations than others, but chances are that a genetic advantage is NOT unique to one population only. Therefore, Kenyans are not likely to be unique or possess unique genes. This does not mean there is not genetic advantage, however.

For instance, if we take the very simplified view that Kenyans are great runners because they have longer legs, shorter torsos and skinny calf muscles (this is part of the explanation put forward), then I guarantee that there are thousands of adults in the USA, UK and here in South Africa with that same structure and hence advantage. It is not unique to Kenya. However, this does not mean that genes do not contribute, as I shall explain shortly.
Once a collection of factors are identified, they must be exposed to the optimal environment in order to be "expressed". And I'm not talking gene expression here (though this is part of it, literally). I'm talking more about the ability to identify, nurture and then develop whatever innate ability is there. In the absence of the right environment - the coach, the competition, the system, the culture - any genetic advantages will never be identified or realized. Therefore, a method or a system is just as crucial as genes

It may be about prevalence, not presence

Now, where this leaves one is with a combination model, that says that genes ARE important, but so is the application of training and hard work to them. If now one looks at the Kenyan population, there are only two possible theories available:

Kenyans have exactly the same probability as the rest of the world's athletes of becoming elite, but the difference is in the system. This is the theory of the second article I linked to earlier.
Kenyans have the same types of genes, nothing unique sets Kenya apart, but...the prevalence of these favorable genetic factors is greater in this population. The result is that the same system applied to 100 people in Kenya and 100 people in say, the UK, will produce a different result, because the "raw material" is different in the different populations. There may be a greater probability of discovering champions in Kenya, not because of the presence of a gene variant, but rather its prevalence among the population

Differentiating between these options requires large scale genome wide association studies on huge numbers of the respective populations. It comes with many strings attached - the interpretation of genetic differences across ethnic groups is fraught with difficulty. It is impossible at this stage to conclusively link a particular gene variants, or even a panel of gene variants, to performance, though some breakthroughs have been made. For instance, it was recently found that individuals who had 19 or more of a panel of 21 SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) were high responders to training, wherease individuals who had 9 or fewer of these 21 SNPs were poor responders. I think it's fair to say that Olympic champion runners would come from the first group, and thus possess 19 or more of these identified SNPs.

That's the approach that will further unlock understanding of the genetic basis for performance. If I had to commit to a hypothesis, it would be this:

Within the Kenyan population, and specifically, the Nandi sub-tribe of the Kalenjin tribe (this group, incidentally, makes up 3% of the Kenyan population, but make up almost half of their great international runners), there will be a higher prevalence of favorable gene variants or genotypes than in a population from another country.
The result is that the application of the same training stimuli, plus the environmental factors and culture, will result is a greater emergence of international caliber runners from this population. For every 100 people, there exists a greater probability that an elite athlete will emerge from the Kenyan population than a similarly aged population in say, Australia or America
On top of this, add the fact that the environment in Kenya (and East Africa) is uniquely suited to distance running. The people, the culture of running, the history of success, the altitude, diet, economic factors and 'system' ensure that in Kenya, the training environment is unlike any other in the world. This is why so many athletes go to Kenya to train - their system is 'best of breed'

So, when you combine this training environment to a theorized prevalence model for genetic advantage, it is not difficult to see the origin of statistics that are so often quoted to support the Kenyan dominance - 20 of 25 Boston champions, 7 of 8 London champions and the top 25 times in the marathon world two years ago. These are the result of BOTH genetic and training related factors, but it is unlikely to be a unique gene that is found only in Kenya. The rest of the world therefore is not destined to be beaten (as Galen Rupp and a number of Americans have shown), but they have to work a lot harder on a system-wide level to identify those athletes with the potential to be competitive, and to expose them to the right environment (without a host of other distractions, which arguably compromise the success of runners).

Think of the mining analogy - there are some places in the world where you can pick valuable metals off the ground. In others, you have to prospect, consult geologists, and invest heavily to dig deep into the earth's crust to extract those valuable materials. Kenya may just be, genetically speaking, the richest natural source of talent. But they also mine it more effectively, and that combination is the secret to success.
Finally, I do not see any genetic argument in any way undermining the achievement of a nation like Kenya. To suggest that they have some advantage is not to say that they have done any less to earn their champions and medals. I think this is the root of the controversy, and it's a pity because it comes from a polarization attitude that seems to believe that if you have one, you don't need the other. When I am watching Boston, or Rotterdam, or London, over the next week, I will be in awe of men running 2:05 and women running 2:20, not because they are genetically superior in any way, and not because they train hard, but because they have it all, and they're maximizing natural and hard earned talent. That's worth celebrating. And understanding.

Of course, this is all just hypothesis generating thought. The studies will come in time, and perhaps we will one day discover a unique gene in East Africans, and another in West Africans or Jamaicans that makes them such amazing sprinters. Or perhaps we'll discover no differences at all. Regardless, I can't see how either extreme position (it's all genes, or it's all training) is defendable. It must be, as I've now written often, the realization of genetic potential through training that produces those great performances.

Thoughts welcome!

Ross

The thyroid medication debate: Is it doping? Brief thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:34:00 +0000

Does the use of thyroid stimulating hormones in athletes cross a doping boundary?

Early today, I tweeted a link to a really thought-provoking investigative piece from the Wall Street Journal. It describes a USA-based doctor, Jeffrey Brown, who treats a number of athletes for hypothyroidism, which he describes as a condition that afflicts endurance athletes as a result of their high training volumes and intensity. It's an excellent article, and well worth a read before you read on.

Without going into every single intriguing question raised by the article (there are many - the validity of his claim that hypothyroidism is common among athletes is questioned, as is the performance benefit of the drug), I thought I'd share some very brief thoughts on it below. This is, as always, a first word on a debate and I welcome thoughts and comments below!

Brief comment

When reading about the medical use of drugs in athletes, the most obvious and impulsive parallel to draw is asthma, for which athletes can get TUEs (therapeutic use exemptions) to use steroid-containing inhalers to restore "normal" function and compete fairly. It's been suggested that within the athletic population, the prevalence of asthma is higher than in a typical sample, and that's not a triumph over adversity, it's more likely the manoeuvring of athletes within the grey areas of doping control! The same is true for some other drugs - Armstrong's corticosteroid TUE in 1999 comes to mind. Lionel Messi and HGH as a child is another.

With thyroid hormones, however, I feel that the situation is subtly different, because the allegation (in the WSJ article, anyway) is that it's the training that causes the condition to begin with. That's not the case for asthma, which is an existing condition, admittedly worsened by intense exercise, but not a direct consequence of exercise participation and training.

In effect then, in the case of hypothyroidism, the athlete requires the medication because they behave as an athlete - they train hard. They generate the condition, and the drug permits harder training, and that to me does cross the line of fairness. I see no distinction between this and the use of testosterone or other hormones to ensure that recovery is optimized. Similarly, blood doping or other methods to manipulate blood could be justified as means to help the body recover from the arduous training required to compete as an elite athlete. After all, the chronic effects of a three-week stage race like the Vuelta Espana on hormones are known - for instance, testosterone and cortisol decrease significantly - this is the result of the stress of competition. These changes could arguably be treated, with valid and credible physiological benefits, by the administration of drugs. I do not see the difference between this situation and the use of any other medication that directly stimulates hormone production by the body.

Of course, this introduces a slippery slope, one that those of you well versed in the doping debate will be onto right away. If these types of interventions are banned, then why not similar interventions that improve recovery, including diet? This is where the debate gets progressively greyer, and in lecturing students today, it came up as a very important question. It's not a leap of logic to go from a position that allows some things to allowing everything, or vice-versa - if you can't use X, then you shouldn't be allowed to use Y.

I have no definitive answer on this, only an opinion. That is the opinion that part of becoming a world-class athlete is the ability to respond to high training volumes. In an almost "Darwinian" manner, training is the stress that sorts out the fittest from the fitter (the fit and unfit have long ago been filtered out by performance level and lack of, for want of a better word, talent!).

Therefore, if an athlete is subjected to a training load X and intensity Y, their ability to respond to that load with improved physiology and performance, without breaking down sick, overtrained and injured, is crucial for their ultimate performance level. If they cannot adapt, and break down, they become sick and overtrained, and fail to reach the same levels as the responders. The athletes who require medical assistance that nudges their hormones levels up to restore them to levels typical of a non-training individual are benefitting from an unnatural practice that DIRECTLY changes hormone levels.

Of course, I must stress that the aetiology and presence of the hypothyroidism introduced in the WSJ article (link below for more) is debatable to begin with, but it would seem to me to be part of the giant complex puzzle that goes into producing an elite athlete. It's also debatable whether the administration of thyroid stimulating drugs benefits performance. One IOC source quoted in the WSJ piece claims that it is more likely to inhibit than enhance performance, and so clearly studies are required. Studies are also required to understand if it is harmful. However, in principle, I cannot see how the prescription of synthetic thyroid hormones to help athletes cope with training differs from the administration of steroids and blood-manipulating drugs and methods that are already on the list of banned substances and practices.

I'm sure there will be widely differing opinions, and I welcome them all. I'm certainly well aware of the "hypocritical" position one can adopt when saying one practice should be banned but not another. Indeed, we've had the debate about the legalization of drugs in sport many times right here. This is yet another grey area in that debate. Your thoughts are welcome.

For a start, the thoughts shared here by Letsrun.com's Weldon Johnson are interesting, we ll framed and include quotes from inside the sport of athletics. They also discuss why thyroid hormones may benefit performance, as well as safety. I echo these sentiments, and further discussion is certainly required

Ross

Late addition:

In posting on our Facebook page, the following occurred to me, so I'm sharing it below. Related to the above, but to add a dimension from an old subject - females and testosterone. It's about what we are born with, to some extent. Some are just luckier than others!

Here's that post:

One final thought on the thyroid hormone issue, and I have to raise the ghosts of female/gender issues in sport. There are some "conditions", which are not really conditions, but rather normal variations in hormones that preclude certain individuals from succeeding in sport. For instance, a study by Cook et al showed clearly that female athletes with higher testosterone levels were elite, and those with lower levels were not (link in comments section below)

Such is life - you have it, or you don't. In some instances, those who have it become elite, those who do not, well, they become enthusiasts. Now, I am totally sympathetic to the fact that there are individuals who genuinely are affected by hormone imbalances. Hypothyroidism is real. As is hypogonadism in males, and a variety of other conditions.

But when it comes to elite sport, there's a certain element of luck in the genetic "lottery" that determines who becomes elite and who does not. I could, for instance, reasonably argue, that aspects of my physiology are inferior (compared to say, Usain Bolt's) and that the appropriate intervention by a doctor with some questionable ethical standards is all I need to join the ranks of the elite. In reality, it doesn't work this way, but I illustrate a point, which is to say that biological variation is part of what we celebrate when we crown an Olympic gold medalist!

And part of biological variation is the baseline physiology, as well as the adaptation to training, and the 'hardware' we take into an athletic career. That is refined by training, but only when the training response is positive - that, in turn, is part of the physiology. Some individuals cannot achieve the same success without medication and that to me puts this practice over the line of fairness.

Now, ideally, we will develop a way to clearly identify whether a person has developed hypothyroidism because of a genuine medical condition, or whether it is training related. As I've said in the article, when it's training related, I cannot see how the use of synthetic hormones can be justified. And given that this ideal situation is unlikely to exist, as much as I want to see a solution for all, I cannot. And thus, thyroid hormones should, in my opinion, be banned, unless it can be clearly shown that they have no performance benefit (which it can't because if they allow training in a fatigued individual, then the comparison must be with an athlete not training, and that's a clear performance benefit).

Ross

The low-carb, high fat diet debate and deviant thinking

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:56:00 +0000

The low-carb high fat diet debate: Three videos, and thoughts on polarized views and 'deviant' thinking

One of the hot topics in exercise science and diet is the low-carb, high-fat diet concept, now backed vocally by Prof Tim Noakes in South Africa. In December, he and Prof Jacques Roussouw debated the dietary guidelines with respect to cholesterol and its impact on heart disease, and a video of that debate can be found below. The low-carb diet echoes other topical issues in exercise science, perhaps most notably barefoot running, in that it polarizes opinions between two opposing camps. It then strays into 'rules' and over-simplifications, which are arguably incorrect. Here's how to 'pole-spot' and embrace complexity, along with the low-carb debate

- Ross Tucker

In the course of a debate on doping and cycling a few years ago, a certain well-known exercise physiologist who had tested and defended Lance Armstrong publicly dismissed Jonathan and I as "newly-minted scientists". True, of course, since we had both obtained our qualifications within four years of him writing those words.

He intended it as disrespectful at the time, suggesting ours was an opinion not worth listening to because we did not have 300 years of experience (and about as many conflicts of interests, I'd add) behind us. I always viewed "newness" as a distinct advantage, because it brings with it some aspect of novelty, a new way of approaching an old problem. That's often lacking in science and in many areas of life (coaches, managers, I'm looking at you!), and as I've evolved from newly minted to (recently?) minted, I've come to recognize that progress usually comes from forcing a novel view.

Deviant thinking and innovation

I recently spoke to a group of financial consultants about the lessons I have learned about high performance teams from my involvement with sports teams and athletes, and one thing that I tried to re-inforce, in business and in sport, is that progress is the result of so-called deviant thinking. By "deviant", I mean that person who pushes back against convention, who asks the apparently ridiculous questions and forces others to rethink their positions of comfort. Deviants make us anxious, but they also drive innovation.

If we are allowed to drift along with the current, we never challenge paradigms. Jonathan and I were both fortunate that our post-graduate training was overseen by Prof Tim Noakes, who is not newly minted but has retained the capacity to challenge current beliefs. He is a scientific "deviant", in the most complimentary sense of the word. In so doing, he has driven a change in perceptions around fluid intake and dehydration during exercise, and also has contributed to our understanding of fatigue and the role the brain plays in performance regulation. These topics were, respectively, the subject of Jonathan and my PhDs, and so we have inherited this desire to push back against convention, hence the existence of, and many of the approaches and articles on, this website.

The low-carb high-fat diet debate

The latest area of Noakes' interest is diet. Specifically, he is a vocal proponent against carbohydrates and processed food, arguing for a high fat, low carb diet. In South Africa, it is impossible to give a presentation on exercise and health without some member of the public asking about Noakes' dietary views and their implications for exercise, weight loss and health.

However, it is not a topic whose specific content and details I am comfortable dealing with. I am not an endocrinologist, nor a cardiologist, nor a dietician. I understand the basics, but in the same way that my driver's license does not entitle me to tell Michael Schumacher, Sebastian Vettel or Jimmie Johnson how to drive, I would not presume to educate or correct the experts on diet and cardiology - I might ask them a few pointed questions, of course, and challenge their thinking, but there's a line that I wouldn't cross in terms of dictating to them. I have not dealt with people struggling to lose weight, and have not encountered the very real, practical challenges they face. I do not have a lifetime of expertise evaluating research studies on heart disease, though I can appreciate how many 'holes' exist in current thinking. Nor have I devoted any length of time to evaluating the respective sides of this particular debate.

And so I won't delve into specifics, at least not now. However, in order to make the debate as widely accessible as possible, which is important, I want to share with you three videos. They are taken from the University of Cape Town's Centenary Debate, held last year in December, where Prof Tim Noakes and Prof Jacques Roussouw debated various aspects of the high fat diet. The focus is very much on cholesterol and its links with heart disease. The videos are long, but worth watching when you have the time. I'd love your feedback, your thoughts on who "won" the debate and what it means for our understanding. Those videos are at the bottom of this post.

Thoughts on scientific concepts and complexity

But first, my view on this whole debate, without delving into the specifics. My biggest "objection" as it were, is not to the content of the debate, but rather the manner and justification for each side's respective positions. Below is part of a presentation I gave to the public last year, and in it, I mention two examples of how scientific progress and application to the public can be undermined by the natural, human desire to simplify the message and adopt a polarized view of what are actually very complex concepts. (Click here if you are reading this in an email)

The first is the 10,000 hour concept for expert performance - a great theory, wonderful to motivate parents and young athletes about the value of training, but a pretty useless theory in practice - in sport, it hardly ever applies. The second is barefoot running, which has been taken and transformed into a cure for everything without any evidence.

Polarized science, rules and a wildly swinging pendulum

The result of these kinds of debates is a polarized science, one where the pendulum swings wildly from one extreme to the other. We go from "Practice is the only thing" to "Genes are the only thing" and back. Or from "Barefoot running will prevent all injuries" to "Barefoot running is a fast-track plan for physical therapists". Neither is true as a "rule", though within any population, there will be those who succeed at the extremes, and those who fail. That of course introduces a huge confirmation bias, because every success story is held up as "proof". It also leads to cherry-picking, because anything not supporting the pole has to be ignored. Those who advocate for those polarized positions must recognize that they are pulling everyone to the sides, where they may not belong.

The same is true for diet and metabolism. The reality is that we are dealing with complexity in physiology that can't be explained by one theory, and an obesity problem that does not have one solution. Biological complexity dictates that what works for one will not work for another, and that's what coaches figure out very early with athletes, and dieticians learn empirically with clients. The idea that shoes are bad is just as wrong as the idea that shoes are essential, because in any population, either could be true for some people. These kinds of over-simplifications are damaging because they polarize understanding in a way that benefits few, introducing dogma that is then disseminated to the detriment of many. And that is the point I make in the presentation above.

So, how is this relevant to diet? Well, the same things I see from the barefoot debate appear to be happening in the dietary debate. Conventional wisdom is challenged, and rapidly leads to the formation of two opposing camps, whose idealism is so at odds that the poor people in the middle, who are ultimately the "end users" of the information, are caught in a figurative stretching rack, being pulled in opposite directions by 'extremists'. If it is difficult for experts to agree, then imagine how complex it becomes for those in the middle.

The problems at the poles

Science is never black and white. It's one of the first lessons I learned, and have relearned weekly since. Does dehydration impair performance and health? Is fatigue the result of chemicals in the muscle? Is barefoot running safer? Does cholesterol lead to heart disease? There is no such thing as a straight-forward answer to any of these questions, and so a single extreme view is invariably wrong.

It then becomes more about "how" the message is communicated, and not "what" is being said. That is, the content of the deviant view almost always has value - the barefoot running concept, for example, may be incredibly helpful to many runners and I would strongly support that everyone take something from it. On the other hand, there may be people who simply cannot succeed barefoot.

What then tends to happen is that the polarized camps become almost obnoxious about their view, blaming everything but their view for the obvious failure to succeed 100% of the time. If you are injured running barefoot, it's your fault, for instance, and its advocates seem to show no awareness that they are making exactly the same mistake as they accuse shoe companies of making before them. It is that aspect of the debate that is most off-putting, and I find the same true in the carbohydrate debate. The justification for a given position becomes more and more 'radical', and eventually, it is based on anecdotes, resembling a series of TV infomercials promising "more".

Polarization also introduces a risk of weak scientific interpretation, and I've seen examples recently where an association study is dismissed as weak and unreliable when it suggests that carbs are important, only for the same type of association studies to be used as "proof" when they support the desired viewpoint a day later.

Ultimately, there is without doubt truth in any deviant view, but there is also a problem with the idea that the scientific pendulum should swing all the way from its current position to an entirely new one. With respect to the carbohydrate debate, there is no question that Noakes has, like those advocating for it before him, contributed to many success stories and positive changes as a result of diet. And by opening up the kind of debate you see below, he has potentially created enough "scientific anxiety" that it will stimulate a whole new area of research that will ultimately help advance our understanding of how INDIVIDUALS respond to different macro-nutrients, and hopefully reduce the obesity epidemic we face.

But in all this, and in debates about shoes vs barefoot running, and talent vs training, and methods of training and so on, don't feel compelled to pull the pendulum to the other extreme - remember, that's what you're suggesting others have done wrongly before! There's no such thing as "we were 100% wrong before". We just weren't 100% right, and it's the contribution of deviants who help us see that. But stay away from the poles.

UCT Centenary Debate: the cholesterol debate

Right, so below is the debate. It's one long video, divided into three chapters:

Prof Tim Noakes introduces his theory (35:43)
Prof Jacques Roussouw responds (43:21)
Questions and discussion with the audience (51:05, but probably the most interesting aspect)

To compliment the video, you may also want to view the presentations (it's not filmed very well, have to say):

View Prof Noakes' presentation
View Prof Roussouw's presentation

Feel free to comment and share your views. Again, I'm not going into specifics, it just isn't my place and feels disrespectful to people who arguably know more than I do about this, but gladly debate the manner of the debate and the way ideas are communicated!

Ross

Long-term athlete development: Foundations & challenges

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:04:00 +0000

Long-term athlete development: Foundations and challenges for coaches, scientists & policy-makers

The Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model is a physiological framework proposed to manage the focus, volume and type of training applied to athletes as they develop through adolescence into adulthood. There remain a number of question marks against the foundations of LTAD, though it provides a sound framework for sporting development. It does however introduce a number of practical challenges, and its success requires that coaches recognize the potential barriers and conflicts. These are described below in a presentation and summary of LTAD.

- Ross Tucker

I'm currently in Dublin, at the invitation of the International Rugby Board, to present at their biennial Coach Education Workshop. Topics include rugby safety/risk (as my tweet last night illustrated), the professionalization of coaching, Sevens rugby, and the topic for which I was invited, Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD).

LTAD has become something of a staple for sports federations, coaches and administrators - in South Africa, there is a veritable alphabet of LT_Ds, including Athletes (LTAD), Participants (LTPD), Coaches (LTCD), with touted "Fs" (facilities), "Ms" (mentors)" and "Rs" (for resources) in the pipeline.

In any event, LTAD is an interesting starting point for discussion, and this is not exclusively for rugby coaches. Of course, my talk was targeted at rugby, but the same conceptual framework has been applied to every sport, and it's worth debate between scientists, coaches and managers. I take a rather strategic view of this - the specifics have been debated elsewhere, and I think the big picture matters more than the minute details. It's a question of management strategy as much as it is science.

Below is my presentation. Obviously, it lacks the narrative of me talking through it, but I hope that it makes at least some sense without it. Once you've gone through it, I have included some thoughts below, in bullet point form, to sum up the key points regarding LTAD and the challenges facing its implementation.

Here is that presentation (If you are viewing this as an email, click here for the presentation):

Key points:

Introduction

The purpose of any framework, be it LTAD or any other, is to drive the allocation of resources in an effective and efficient manner. These resources, human, financial or structural, are finite, and the decision must be made about where to invest. Talent ID for sport is a relatively simple question - it asks "Where is the athlete today, who will represent our country in 15 years' time?" The simple question however has a complex answer, because we need to find him and then develop that potential talent. That requires some important decisions about who does what within a sporting system? How those resources are allocated is the crux of LTAD.
Talent Identification cannot be formulaic. The biggest oversight or error is to view frameworks such as this as "formulas" for success. Sporting success is multi-factorial, and too complex to obey a single formula. As a result, we look in hindsight at what worked and create models to apply with foresight, but the mistake would be to become too prescriptive or literal. For every rule, there are exceptions, which probably means there is no rule.

The model of Vaeyens et al, presented above, explains the factors associated with sporting excellence. "Giftedness" or innate abilities, along with chance, are recognized as a significant elements, and catalysts including environment and intra-personal characteristics are crucial. Talent Identification and Talent Development contribute to optimizing these elements or catalysts.
Within a given sport, there exists a pipeline that takes young athletes to higher performance levels with age. A number of questions need to be answered - how young and how old? How are resources applied? What role to coaches and competition play? The volume of the "base" drives the required efficiency in order to achieve the same pinnacle. The answer to these questions is proposed by the LTAD model of Balyi. In the presentation, I depict a summary of the excellent Irish Rugby Football Union model, "Six to Six Nations". A google search will reveal many other similar applications of LTAD for various sports

LTAD: Foundations and concerns
LTAD divides the path from a child to a professional into a number of stages. For each stage, the focus, the role of the coach and the responsibilities of the player vary. In the Irish Model, and generally true of LTAD, serious competition is delayed until after adolescence. This has repercussions for where the sport fits in within society, and the management of various stakeholders. In fact, it is this balance between competition (which society demands) and the LTAD proposed delay in competition that is likely to be the source of most "tension", and thus failure, within the model. This is explained later
While conceptually sound, it must be borne in mind that LTAD has not been conclusively proven. Two of the foundations I discuss briefly in the presentation are the "Windows of opportunity" concept, and the 10,000 hour concept.

Re the windows of opportunity, the issue is not so much that they do not exist (though there is some academic debate on this point), but rather the literal or wrongful interpretation of them to lead to neglecting other attributes. In the presentation, I mention two examples of this - physical literacy and aerobic development. For a more comprehensive review, see Ford et al. This is a typical example of applying the concept as though it is a formula - the value is not in being specific, but in understanding principles.

In this regard, there are three core concerns, which I explain in the presentation. The first is that it can become too prescriptive. Always remember that science loves averages and "typical" patterns, but not many individuals are average or typical. As a result, if a coach tries to apply LTAD principles based on the average, there is a danger of "writing off" any young athlete who doesn't adapt, or obey the 'science'. The second is that it's too literal, as explained. And the third is that LTAD can become a real burden because of its extended period of responsibility for the coach or sport.

Early exposure, relative age and 10,000 hours
It seems quite clear that early exposure is important, but if we select talent too early, we run the risk of making mistakes and voluntarily cutting our player pool down by an enormous amount. The best illustration of this is the relative age effect, where coaches of young children confuse maturity with ability, and so when picking players for teams, make the error of picking relatively older players. A large number of potentially great athletes are thus neglected and never receive opportunities reserved for those "lucky" enough to be born at the right time of year!

This is a significant challenge for sports, and may require a rethink about

The age at which we begin to select teams, and;
The level of coaching we provide to our best young players compared to those who don't quite make the cut - I'd argue that the best coaches should perhaps be allocated to the second best players at this age

Having said this, there is some evidence that this relative age effect disappears in adults, which is really interesting, and may suggest that once you have early exposure, and once all the physical differences between early and late developers are ironed out, something else predicts long term success in sport.

The 10,000 hour concept for success, popularized by Gladwell in "Outliers" and Syed in "Bounce" has very little merit if applied literally to sporting success. What it does do is provide a compelling argument that practice helps performance, but this is so obvious it doesn't really need to be said to a group of coaches!

The 10,000 hour concept owes its existence to a study on violinists, by Ericsson, in which he found that the best players have accumulated 10,000 hours. What he failed to do was any statistical analysis at all, and the result is that he didn't show that some people become best experts with less, and others fail despite doing more than 10,000 hours. It took a study on chess players to reveal this - the average time taken to become a master is 11,000 hours, but some did it on 3,000 hours of practice, some haven't succeeded despite 25,000. Those people effectively disprove the theory, and leave us realizing that a lot of practice is required to get good at things, but to commit to a specific number is a myth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for a coach, one of the best methods of talent ID is to look for responsiveness to training. If an athlete cannot acquire a new skill or adaptation rapidly, they're not going to become elite.

Delayed high volumes of training predict success
Studies have shown that success in the CGS sports (sports where performance is measured in centimeters, grams or seconds) is related to a) delayed specialization, and b) delayed high volumes of training. In other words, athletes who perform higher volumes of training when younger are less likely to become elite. Those athletes who delay this increase succeed. There are a number of possible explanations for this - one is burnout, in athletes who do more when younger. The other is physiological, and this is the one I've explained in the presentation above.

This is again an argument for delaying the identification and training of young athletes until after the physiological changes associated with adolescence are completed. It is at 16, not 13, that talent ID and development become more effective.

Physiological determinism and fate: the role of physiology/genes
In rugby, as in many sports, physiology plays a crucial role. Even among a very good group of rugby players, who are the best in the country, there is a small but significant difference in stature and mass in those players who go on to become the very best (Springbok players). In rowing, one of the more amazing findings I have seen in recent years, shows that elite female rowers have testosterone levels 112% higher than sub-elite female rowers. One interpretation of this is that if you do NOT have testosterone levels in that range, then no amount of training, no LTAD and no development is going to make you elite - physiology determines your fate. That's not to say that having high testosterone levels ensures success, but it is a crucial requirement.
Applying this to rugby, I look at the data of how many rugby players have played at the highest level in South Africa at the age of 13, the age of 16 and the age of 18. Turns out that the conversion of good 13 year olds to good 16 year olds is relatively poor - only 31.5%. From 16 to 18, it's much better - 76% of young players who play at U/16 level also play at U/18 level.

Collectively, what this means is that if you are good enough to play at U/13 level, the chance that you'll make to U/18 level is basically 1 in 4. Not too good. If you make it to U/16 level, there's a 3 in 4 chance that you'll get to U/18 level. Much better.

This has the same significance as the relative age effect and the finding that delayed high volume predicts success - it says that the more you can delay the selection of talent, the more efficient your system. What it does not do, more profoundly, is tell you the fate of all the players who were NOT selected at those younger age groups.

The competition conflict - LTAD vs society's accepted norm
Attitudes to competition provide the greatest barrier to successfully implementing LTAD. If the competition structure places any priority on winning at the junior level, then it directly conflicts with the fundamental of LTAD, which is to delay the importance of winning until after adolescence In South Africa, we have a competition-driven system - compete at 13, compete at 16, compete at 18, and the best come through. It has certainly produced excellent seniors, but may lack efficiency, and possibly, may be detrimental because it 'writes off' a good deal of talent at a young age.

In this kind of competitive model, early maturation is encouraged, and bigger, stronger, faster players are rewarded at a young age. They may simply be the early developers. The result is that once differences are ironed out, they no longer possess an advantage, and the system 'pays' for neglecting those players who would've gone on to become equally large, strong and fast, but potentially with other attributes.

Five key challenges
Given this reality, there are five key challenges facing LTAD:

How do you identify talent without either destroying it or neglecting it? Talent is destroyed when it is chosen for the wrong reasons. If you pick players at 13 based on size, speed and strength, you pick a temporary advantage. But because it is rewarded by the competitive system, it never needs to develop other attributes. Talent is neglected because late developers often do not receive a look in, and are lost to the sport early because of the way the system has been created.
How do you maintain healthy competition without providing a conflicting message to coaches? You cannot create and implement LTAD which says "delay competition", and then have annual competitions for 10 or 13 year olds, the results of which are crucial to future success as a player. That is a mixed message, and the coach will always go with performance.
How does a sport embracing LTAD affect that sport's standing in society? The reality is that sport is a big deal, even from young ages. Here in South Africa, high schools look for young children with athletic potential and offer scholarships and potential career paths. At a young age, good athletes are virtually professional and society has come to accept this as "normal". Implementing LTAD challenges that, and if the entire environment does not also do the same, then it creates a conflict between one sport and another, and even within a sport.

For example, I work with SA Sevens, and we are looking at driving the specialization of players to become Sevens players from a younger age. We are not going down to the 10-year olds, but it illustrates that because players themselves are finite, they are the subject of competition. Imagine rugby implements LTAD and football does not - a good number of young players, perhaps forced by parents, will move towards football. There is a degree of "security" in early specialization, however wrong that perception may be.
Who are the other stake-holders in LTAD? It's simply not reasonable to suggest that one sport have an LTAD programme from 5 up to adulthood. As mentioned, it's unnecessary because you don't need 10,000 hours to begin with, and it's also costly and potentially crippling to place the entire burden on each sport. Therefore, you recognize that other stakeholders, such as parents and government, also play a crucial role, particularly early on when you actually don't want players to specialize, but rather engage in a number of different sports, learning a range of skills and abilities. This is perhaps the key concept for LTAD.
How do we change mindsets? In all of this, it's important to recognize that sporting systems, countries, federations, have a certain inertia. They are giant, sometimes slow-moving bodies and if you stand in the way, you get flattened. Therefore, to successfully implement LTAD, you must address the mindsets and begin to 'nudge' them in a different direction. Failing this, LTAD, or any other similar plan, is nothing more than a fantasy of "best-case", and won't work in the real world. It will take brave leadership to change the competition structure, for example, and to adopt a no compromise attitude towards youth talent ID and selection, based on current principles. I doubt many will have the stomach for the fight, but that may be what it takes.

Alternatively, we can accept a 25% success rate as good enough, which is fair. But that cannot co-exist with excessive competition, as many of the rugby nations here in Dublin have discovered.

Conclusion

A sound concept, LTAD introduces a number of challenges at a system or management strategy level. It also has some debatable physiological concepts, but the debate on those is perhaps too academic and thus not relevant for coaches. It should not be taken too literally or prescriptively, but rather regarded as a framework to guide decisions.

The big picture is where it is far more complex. Certainly, in South Africa, we will have to grapple with whether competition at young ages is the best way to achieve senior success, or whether it is worth the aggravation to change this. There is no evidence, because there are no long-term prospective studies, that help us 'guess' how elite performance would change as a result of policy changes at the junior level. However, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that if youth selection is delayed, and if the pool of available talent is kept large for long enough, we will see more viable prospective talents and thus better performance.

Coaching is often referred to a mix of art and science, and LTAD is similar. There is no single path, and this is a debate likely to extend well into the future. Feel free to weigh in below.

Ross

The Kenyan advantage: Is it calf elasticity?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:21:00 +0000

The Kenyan advantage: Is it calf elasticity?

The most recent study investigating the fascinating dominance of East African distance runners has found that Kenyan athletes have more elastic calf muscles than non-athletic whites. Is this the secret to their success? The reality is far more complex, and includes some major conceptual challenges facing research studies on Kenyan athletes

- by Ross Tucker

Towards the end of last year, Jim Ferstle sent me this article, written by long-time friend Amby Burfoot. In it, Burfoot describes the results of a recent study on international level Kenyan distance athletes. Burfoot does an excellent job of summarizing the study, and some of its limitations and implications, but very briefly:

The researchers compared ten international level Kenyan runners to ten non-trained white males, matching them for height
The participants performed a maximum hopping drill which isolates, to some extent, the contribution made by the calf muscles and Achilles tendon
They measured various anthropometric outcomes (achilles tendon length, for example), and kinematic outcomes, like power, contact time, and rebound height
The full list of what was measured in shown the table below, and I've highlighted in yellow the key differences between the Kenyan and white participants

To summarize, the Kenyans have:

Longer Achilles tendons
Shorter contact times during hopping
Longer flight time
Greater rebound height
Greater jumping power

All in all, it's a picture of compelling and significant differences between the Kenyan and white athletes, and points towards greater elasticity in the Kenyan calves.

The significance for running, of course, is that if the tendons are more elastic, the running economy is improved significantly, and this means faster running at lower oxygen cost. At least, this is the theory.

What the study does NOT show: Kenyans are great because...

What the study is NOT, however, is any kind of proof of what makes Kenyan runners so good compared to European/Caucasian runners.

And herein lies the catch. When performing a comparison between two groups like this, it's very important to know what you have to match. And if you don't match the groups correctly, then the conclusions you reach will be entirely misdirected, and this is what I would suggest is happening in this research study.

To illustrate, the authors make the following conclusion in the paper:

"the Kenyan MG muscle–tendon unit is optimized to favor efficient storage and recoil of elastic energy".

However, you could just as easily have concluded as follows:

"The muscle tendon unit of highly trained, international caliber athletes, is optimized to favor efficient storage and recoil of elastic energy when compared to people who are inactive and untrained"

The real problem with this study, at least in terms of its definitive application to the question of Kenyan running ability, is that it makes an unfair comparison. If you take what are clearly crucial factors for performance in highly performing athletes, and compare them to the same factors in untrained people, you are destined to find a difference that has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, and everything to do with performance. You are not so much measuring the advantage of Kenyans, as you are the advantage possessed by people who train and are athletic, and you could read the entire research paper, inserting the word "elite" every time you see "Kenyan" and it would make just as much sense.

So a lot depends on what your question is. If you ask "What makes the Kenyans so good?" and you answer "They have elastic calf muscles", then you'd be making the mistake of over-applying the finding of this research. If however you ask "What physiological characteristics may set elite athletes apart from sedentary folk?", then you can point to this study as providing evidence of another factor that ALL distance runners, not just Kenyans, need to possess. What you don't know, of course, is whether the athlete becomes elite because of highly elastic tendon, or whether the tendon elasticity improves with training - that's an answer for a longitudinal study.

An incomplete picture, but not necessarily wrong

So, I don't mean to be too critical of the research, I think it's sound and provides very interesting data. Perhaps most crucially, it identifies yet another physiological attribute of elite athletes - high tendon elasticity. But you cannot extrapolate this study into the debate about Kenyan running dominance. All it does, for now, is provide evidence that Kenyan athletes possess musculo-tendinous qualities that are likely beneficial for distance running, but it has not yet shown that these characteristics do not exist the world over. It is thus incomplete, not incorrect, and requires that elite white runners and sedentary Kenyans be included in the results, which would complete the picture and allow a broader conclusion.

The true control group, to whom the elite Kenyans should be compared, however, is a group of performance matched athletes from Europe, or America, or perhaps even Ethiopia/Uganda/Eritrea. I strongly suspect that if Galen Rupp, or Chris Solinsky, or even the Brownlee brothers, or any one of the fifty world class white middle- and long-distance runners, were included in the control group, the differences would disappear. This should, I hope, be relatively obvious.

On that note, if you did test all these groups of performance-matched runners, and you still find differences, then you've found something really fascinating, because you'll have shown that the same performance can be the result of many different "input" characteristics, and there's not one thing that predicts performance. This is arguably true, and it's why so many studies trying to find differences in things like VO2max or running economy fail - performance is multi-factorial.

The catch-22 of comparative research

So, if this study can't conclusively answer the Kenyan performance question, what is the study that is required? Let me start off by saying that in 2013, I'm going to get a taste of this very challenge, because as I write this, a friend and colleague, Dr Jordan Santos Concejero, is about to board an aeroplane from Spain to conduct post-doc research with me in Cape Town, and we are going to be investigating a number of biomechanical, neurological and physiological factors in elite Kenyan runners.

I'll tell you those details at some stage in the future, but I will say that in the planning stages, our biggest question, by far, has been figuring out who to compare the Kenyans to. We have some decent, but not great runners in South Africa - 29 to 30 min for 10km, and so if we compare Kenyans to these guys, we'll end up finding differences, NOT because they're Kenyan, but because they are 1 to 2 min faster than our control group! Of course their VO2, lactate, economy, fatigue profile, EMG and mechanics are different - they're at a different level of running ability.

So, we now face the Catch-22 of doing Kenyan research. I have no answer for you yet, but it is a real problem as we grapple with the questions of Kenyan dominance. The reality is that there are not enough non East African runners in the world who can run 27-min for 10km to answer this question. Galen Rupp and Solinsky are really the only two, perhaps Mottram in his prime was at that level, but the cupboard is bare. I'll let you know what we end up deciding for our research!

What can be done? One option is to compare completely untrained individuals from Kenya to those from Europe. In this way, you eliminate the training confounder, and your hypothesis may be that Kenyans have greater elasticity even without training. Another is to investigate children, for the same reason. Saltin did this many years ago, but that study struggled because even at that age, there are such vast differences in lifestyle that Kenyan and Danish (in that case) are quite different.

Even here, however, you're not really answering the question, because you're still looking for a unique attribute thing, or even a group of attributes that can explain why an individual from one group can achieve more than an individual from another group. I'd call this is the "unique factor approach", and it's probably doomed to failure, it's highly unlikely that the Kenyans have something unique, that the rest of the world does not possess.

This is also the reason nobody has found THE gene for performance - there's not one thing. And it certainly won't be present in just one tiny group of people, even if it did exist. This is a futile approach, one that is often taken, and whose failure is often used to justify the idea that genes don't matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. All it means is that there is no gene, or other factor (like calf elasticity) that is unique to Kenyans or Ethiopians. Or Jamaican sprinters, for that matter. It doesn't mean that genes aren't crucial, as some have suggested.

Rather, what you have to look at is whether that unique factor, or collection of factors, is present with a greater frequency in one group than other. That's the key.

The numbers effect - the reason for the dominance

And that leads me to my theory for Kenyan and east African dominance, and bear with me as I play the hypotheticals.

Let's say that there are ten characteristics that make elite runners who they are. Economy, maximal oxygen uptake, biochemistry are there, and now add calf elasticity, Achilles tendon length and muscle power to the list. These characteristics sum together to equal the great distance men who can run sub-27 min for 10km and 2:05 marathons.

To be in this elite group, you have to possess those characteristics. The value of the latest study on calf elasticity is not that it differentiates Kenyans from other populations, but rather that it points us towards more of the factors that are non-negotiable for elite runners.

Now, all over the world, you'll have individuals who possess these characteristics - they tick the boxes. There's nothing in the Kenyan population that is unique. No muscle fiber, no skinny calf, no elastic tendon, no enzyme, no brain, no heart. They do not have 'exclusive rights' to some magical 11th factor that makes them better runners than the rest of the world.

But, what they might have, and this is my current thinking, is a higher prevalence of people with the "right stuff". Out of a group of 100 untrained east African "aspirants", I'd hypothesize that more will have the right collection of running-positive attributes than a similarly trained group of 100 anywhere else. If that group trains and is exposed to the right culture to excel in a sport, then the result is that so many emerge from the population with the ultimate outcome - performance ability. We know that Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea have the right macro- and micro-environment, allied to a culture and history of running, that creates the perfect "melting pot" for endurance running. If it is the case that the "right" genes, and hence physiological characteristics like muscle-tendon elasticity are more prevalent, then the dominance they have becomes clearer to understand.

That's my hypothesis - a higher density or prevalence of running-beneficial characteristics, to which training and lifestyle are applied in greater numbers than anywhere else. Now all that is required is the proof!

Summary

The latest study is intriguing because it finds that calf elasticity and Achilles tendon length are different in Kenyan athletes compared to sedentary whites. This is not however a finding that should be used to argue that Kenyans dominate running because they have more elastic calves than whites. This is very unlikely to be a unique advantage, and there are doubtless individuals the world over who have the same attribute.

What the study does do is provide further evidence that tendon elasticity is a crucial factor in determining performance. With respects to the Kenyan question, the next step is to ask whether the prevalence of this characteristic is greater in the Kalenjin population, because that may start to uncover why they are able to produce so many world class athletes, not neglecting the fact that the culture and training environment that has been created in Kenyan "unearths" so many of these exceptional runners.

As always, comments and discussion welcome.

Ross

Guest post: The Last Lance?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:27:00 +0000

Guest Post: The Last Lance? - Dr John McGowan

This is the week when the world will "learn" from Lance Armstrong that he used performance-enhancing drugs. There is a 1000 page report from the USADA that already tells us this, so the exact role that Oprah Winfrey will play in this evolving theatre remains to be seen. The greatest initial criticism when Armstrong announced that he would sit in Oprah's confessional was that she would be soft, uninformed and unlikely to expose the full extent of his actions. Exhibit A - Marion Jones on the Oprah couch. But then again, there are 1000-pages to tell us the truth, so we needn't despair.

As for whether Oprah will know what to ask, unless she has sequestered herself in a cave for the last two weeks, she should, because enough people have told her what to ask. That included this from William Fotheringham (10 questions Oprah should ask), these five questions that Betsy Andreu would ask, and then the ten questions from David Walsh, which were published in the Chicago Tribune.

It has also been reported that Oprah's team has been in contact with the Lemonds, the Andreus and David Walsh, to find out their perspectives on Lance's deception. But, it's one thing knowing which questions to ask, it's quite another to know the questions (and challenges) in response to the answers, as David Walsh pointed out on Twitter this week. The best example of this comes from this excellent article by Joe Lindsey, who points out that some of Armstrong's 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO contained no naturally-produced EPO. It was all synthetic. The implication? Armstrong had been doping for so long, so aggressively that his body had stopped producing its own EPO. That is the context that is necessary in the event that Armstrong argues that he only doped "a little" to keep up with the culture of the sport. These are nuances that matter, and which will likely escape this particular "confession".

Also, there's a really good chance that Lance will invoke the "everyone was doing it, so it was a level playing field" argument. This is completely nonsensical, because doping clearly doesn't affect everyone equally - it's a matter of physiology and morality, and of course some were prepared to try to get away with more than others. Having exclusive rights to the least moral doctor helped, and so did blowing the whistle on fellow dopers who were beating you. Not to mention the fact that not everyone was doping to begin with, so someone in those races was being defrauded. So let's hope that Oprah doesn't sit there with deer eyes and accept this lazy, utterly incorrect argument about a "level playing field". For more on this, refer to Point #3 in this article that I wrote in August last year

The strategic angle - how best to manipulate public opinion?

The story of Lance Armstrong has been an evolving production, now into its final act. Maybe. Probably not. I haven't written much on it at all, primarily because there are many others who do it so much better (like Joe Lindsey, and this piece, which is rightly scathing of A rmstrong, and describes his likely justification for doping - "I did the bad thing for the greater good"), and whose job is to cover this kind of news. But it's also because there's "Lance fatigue" - it's been five months of endless Lance coverage. When that USADA Reasoned Decision came out, followed by the 1000-pages of supporting evidence, the book was closed. It was over. For some, of course, the denial has been more stubborn, but I think most were swayed by the sheer strength and weight of evidence.

However, the story has refused to die, and now, in the latest play, Armstrong has turned to the priestess of television. I've provided links to the best of the articles over on Facebook and Twitter, for those who want to keep up to date through the social media platforms. But the response to many links has indicated that you too are suffering from Lance-induced burn out.

But, alas, there is more to be said. A big part of the fascination with the Oprah interview is that Lance has always been strategic and manipulative, and this is likely no different. We suspect we know his intentions - media coverage, becoming relevant again, having his ban reduced to allow him to compete again. Quite how he plans to achieve the 'end-game' has been the subject of endless speculation, and therein lies the story for now. Will he admit to everything? Will he apologize? Does he have information that hasn't been revealed, and will he name those who facilitated his fraud? That means Ferrari, Bruyneel, the UCI, Verbruggen, McQuaid and co. Doping is only part of it - the intimidation, the bribes and payoffs, the threats and the legal bullying of those who dared to tell the truth is what sets Lance Armstrong apart from the sport's other dopers. Will Oprah Winfrey recognize this? Only time will tell.

For more on this, rather than repeat what I've read, I post below a guest article written by Dr John McGowan, who has previously written for us on the Armstrong story. McGowan is the Academic Director of the Department of Applied Psychology at Canterbury Christ Church University in Kent. He previously tackled the issue of whether doping should be legalized as well as the psychology of Lance's unpopularity, and today discusses the possible outcomes of the Oprah interview. Here is his piece:

The Last Lance, by Dr John McGowan

I thought I’d had enough of Lance Armstrong. Really. Lately I’ve felt completely sated with battles, dominance, accusations, denials, aggression, petulance, banal tweets, more battles, disgrace, and ultimate capitulation. Though whether his decision not to contest USADA’s charges was indeed capitulation depends on who you ask. After all, as of today, he’s still admitting nothing. Truth told, I didn’t care. Me and Lance were through. However, suddenly it seems that his interest value might not be completely played out and that there may be one more great spectacle to rival Luz Ardiden in 2003. As anyone with a pulse-rate monitor (or even just a pulse) knows, on the 17th of January, Lance is going head-to-head with Oprah.

I’m clearly not the only one who’s been snapped out of an uninterested torpor. Suddenly all those people eager to tell us what a poor human being he is, and how they too are over him, are speculating wildly on what he will say. Will he come clean? Go on denying? Why is he doing it? Can he come back into the public’s affection? Go into politics? He’s loaded still isn’t he? Or is he broke? Is this the beginning of his rehabilitation? Or the last hurrah? I can’t pretend to know what he’ll say or what the effect will be, but I have a few thoughts on what the constraints on him are and whether or not this really is the end.

Around the time of USADA’s “Reasoned Decision” I wrote a post here discussing the ethics of doping. Though we often treat dopers as pantomime baddies, the issue is a little hazier than that. There are even those who advocate a liberalised regime around performance enhancements in sport. Such arguments are based on a judgement that fair competition and safe sport are illusory, that much of the harm caused by drugs flows from under-the-radar use, and that the authorities are unlikely to ever catch up with what the athletes are doing.

There is something to be said for all of these positions, though I went to some lengths to say why I didn’t agree. The broader point though, is that advocating doping in sport isn’t simply a kooky position that is easily dismissed. Rather an informed opinion requires appraisals about where you stand on these different issues. It’s clear that doping may be the result of a range of considerations and pressures, and the caricature of the “dirty doper” may mask a more complex reality. Given this, my other main contention in the earlier article was that the beefs many have with Lance are related to his dishonesty rather than his drug-taking, and far more about his bullying than his breaking of the rules.

Full tearful confession?

The interview with Oprah is being sold as “no holds barred”, and the primary question flying round the internet is “will Lance finally fess up?” The emerging consensus seems to be a resounding, "No". Why? Well firstly there is Oprah’s interviewing style, widely perceived as too soft to expose the more uncomfortable stuff. Additionally you might wonder whether she or her audience is likely to be informed about the nuances of Lance’s EPO profile in the year after the Festina affair.

He may also be unwilling to come completely clean voluntarily for various reasons. There is a delicate web of legal considerations he has to navigate (outlined here in an excellent piece by Joe Lindsey). To this I’d add what we know of Lance’s own attitudes. This is a guy who didn’t just want to win races. This is someone who, as former soigneur Emma O’Reilly described it, was so alpha he basically felt he was cycling. And someone who transcended his sport completely. This was a kid from a tough background who became the “Cancer Jesus”, who courted rock stars, and who called the tune for Presidential candidates. Going from that to being an ordinary mortal, prone to weakness and error, is a long fall and you get the feeling that, if it was going to happen, the tearful confession would have come some time ago.

It must be quite awful to be inside his head right now. We know how invested in that identity he was, from how hard he fought when it was threatened. What can it be like to to lose it? Confession might happen of course, but I suspect penitence is not really Lance’s style. With all the murky water that’s flowed under the bridge you also can’t imagine that he can do a Marion Jones (another Oprah disgrace special) and admit drug taking while saying he thought it was ginseng or intravenously administered red zinger.

Continued denial?

If complete confession is off the table then, surely, so is continued denial. To continue on this path would maintain the current surreal limbo where his statements have no credibility and supporters cling to conspiracy theories. And anyway, if he is just going to stonewall why bother going through the whole charade? It seems likely he wishes to open the way for a return to competition (presumably dominating the world of veterans’ triathlon) and regain some measure of public esteem. If the rumour mill is to believed, the interview is partly a result of pressure from Livestrong and it’s hard to imagine that they would be happy with a continuation of the status quo.

Hedged admission?

So what can he possibly say that will help him? The most convincing prediction I’ve read comes from cycling journalist William Fotheringham. He expects a rather hedged performance, with some vague half-admissions, and suggestions that he didn’t do anything different from what everyone else was up to. That something like this will be the tactic has subsequently been borne out by advance PR from the Armstrong camp. Presumably this would make a decent platform to cast doubt on other elements of the evidence against him as exaggerated or vindictive. This kind of tightrope walk between impossible alternatives sounds like a tough gig, but I expect Lance has been training for it with the intensity he used to reserve for L'Alpe d'Huez. Still, even soft interviewers can simply give you just enough rope (as Oprah did with Marion Jones). Coming out of this unmarked is not a foregone conclusion.

Fotheringham goes on to suggest that, if Lance can pull off this strategy, then a measure of rehabilitation might be possible: among Yanks who know nothing about cycling, if not the more hostile public elsewhere. It worked for Richard Virenque who still trades on his rather soiled King of the Mountains jerseys. The path to rehabilitation is also well trodden by others. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched that admitted doper (and now vociferous clean sport campaigner) David Millar will end up as one of the governors of cycling. And who's to say that’s would be a bad thing? OK, Lance’s malfeasance may be of a different order in terms of scale and in his role as an instigator and intimidator.

However, in an environment where Mike Tyson has movie profiles devoted to his introspective complexity and Chris Brown duets with Rihianna, there doesn’t seem much that celebrities can’t come back from. Perhaps Jimmy Savile-style crimes or life-threatening violence but in the UK, even a confederate of the Kray Twins, “Mad” Frankie Fraser, has spent a good portion of his twilight years being a kind of celebrity goon. This is despite being colloquially known as “The Dentist” for levels of oral brutality that I’ll leave you to imagine.

The unforgivable sin?

For all the redeemed souls knocking about though, I’m still not confident that Lance can become one of them and mount a comeback. As I’ve argued before, the key comparison here is with Tiger Woods. In a world where so many sins can be washed away by fame, there is one that is unforgivable: that of trashing your own public image. In Tiger’s case it was the perception of him as preternaturally focused and mentally strong, above ordinary mortal weakness. Since that one went out the window he has managed to find his way back in golf (though hardly to his old form), but his public standing and commercial value have taken a permanent nosedive. Chris Brown or Frankie Fraser may have done terrible things but they were never really perceived as anything more than vicious thugs. They didn’t have any public standing to lose. In cycling Virenque or Millar hadn’t anything like the fame or the heroic stature of Lance Armstrong. The nature of his transgressions means the incompatibility between the Armstrong brand and his actions is now vast, and the hero of old is gone forever.

Tiger is still competing and there is some residual interest in whether he can win another major. I’m struggling to see what new reason Lance can give the public to pay attention to him again. Cancer inspiration once more? Good luck to those who find him so, but for most, I suspect that ship has sailed. Victim of a conspiracy by the authorities and an unfair media machine? It might appeal to a few but I certainly won’t be pre-ordering his next volume of memoirs. Anti-doping convert à la Millar? In a parallel universe maybe. A full confession might help bolster WADA and USADA’s credibility but I’m wondering now how many people would actually care. I guess it’s possible that he may have some role in sport once more but that’s hard to see unless he can find a rapprochement with USADA . Other than a complete confession I’m not sure how that would happen and they don’t really need to do a reduced-sanction deal with him anymore. His failure to strike such deal before the reasoned decision was significant misstep for the master of the well-timed move.

Perhaps part of the interest, and the poignancy, of the Oprah appearance is that it’s not clear whether this will be a re-launch (of a minor sort), or if Lance will simply fade from view. No-one really knows but one thing is certain. Even if he does find some way back, very few of us will ever live strong again.

Dr John McGowan

Year/Academic Director,

Department of Applied Psychology

Canterbury Christ Church University

Kent

Your comments, as always, are welcome. Dr McGowan has promised to also respond for those who fancy a discussion around his piece. Until the show, discuss away!

Ross

Dangerous exercise: The hype of dehydration & heat-stroke

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:22:00 +0000

Dangerous exercise? Dehydration, heatstroke and cardiac risk

Let's kick off 2013 with some thoughts on a sad, but important news story coming out of South Africa. I missed this one, being overseas at the time, but a colleague and I got to talking yesterday, and it's really a very startling reminder of the potential dangers of uncontrolled exercise, without adequate safety awareness and screening.

Here's the story:

A regional division of the South African traffic department held a recruitment drive, looking for 90 potential traffic officers. Inundated by the response - over 35,000 applicants for the 90 jobs - the department used a 4km fitness test as a "filter" of sorts to trim down the numbers and arrive at their best 90 candidates.

In late December, in the small town of Pietermaritzburg, over 30,000 applicants, aged around 18 to 22, took to a 4km time-trial, effectively racing for employment. South African summers mean heat, and the temperatures were above 30 degrees Celsius (about 90F). The end result of the catastrophe was six deaths, attributed in the media to "dehydration" (more on this below), plus a suicide after the race in frustration at not qualifying.

You can read more on this, including statements from the head official, at this link.

Whether a fitness test 4km time-trial is a suitable way to squeeze 30,000 into 90 can be debated, as can the obvious implications of this for South Africa's employment problems. It is a story that has political, management, administrative, socio-economic and even health implications. But let's stick with the physiology, and discuss the risk of dying during exercise, because it's a topic that unfortunately comes up often, and the lessons that can be learned are important.

Just last year, in the London Marathon, a 30-year woman died within sight of the finish line, making news headlines. At a hot Chicago marathon in 2007, a man died amidst accusations of the danger of running in the heat - his death was attributed first to dehydration and heatstroke, later to an existing heart condition. Even elite athletes are not immune - Ryan Shay during an Olympic-qualifying marathon in New York, and Fabrice Muamba during a Premier League Football match. It's a recurring event, often, but not always linked to high temperatures.

Dehydration - the ever-present scapegoat, for everything

Unfortunately, the media continue to propagate a temperature and dehydration myth, which helps nobody because it obscures the more likely causes. In the case of the six traffic officer deaths in South Africa last week, the first line in most media accounts was "six people have died from suspected dehydration".

Let's be clear - you cannot die from dehydration within the first four kilometers of any endurance event. It's just not possible - the body has too much water to reach a critical level of dehydration, whatever that even means. Dehydration is the easiest diagnosis to make, because we have all been so 'drowned' by marketing messages that tell us that fluid loss is a potentially catastrophic risk during exercise and that if we do lose fluid, we will be in mortal danger of dropping down dead.

Physiology says that the body is well able to withstand quite large fluid losses with no detrimental effects on performance or health. It had to be this way, because hunting for our survival didn't benefit from an "-ade" station every 2km, and those who have heard of persistence hunting will also know that a common tactic was to hunt larger animals in the hottest part of the idea, exposing the animal (and the hunter) to many hours of prolonged exercise, without fluid, in the heat. It worked, because we are adapted for this.

Supposedly, as little as 2% dehydration impairs performance by 10%, which is amusing because when the world's elite marathon runners finish in 2:05, they have lost at least 2% body weight, which means they're running two minutes slower than they would've done had they listened to many Gatorade advertisements and scientists sponsored to tell this "truth". The problem is not dehydration, it's thirst - the discomfort created by feeling thirsty is without doubt detrimental, which is why drinking ad libitium, in response to thirst, is both good enough to ensure our health and to optimize performance.

But we're not talking performance here, we're talking mortality, and again, dehydration in an event lasting at most 25 min, is just not on the table.

Dehydration is also blamed for other heat-related afflictions. On Monday night, I watched the BCS Championship Football match, and within about 30 minutes of play, the Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron was shown receiving treatment to his calf muscle on the sidelines. The commentators (who part of me can excuse for not knowing better, but part can't), speculated that the high humidity in Florida, where the match was played, was to blame for muscle cramp. This after probably only 20 min of playing time for the player. It was later revealed that the calf was injured by contact, not cramp. But again, it highlights the dogma that says that dehydration, among many other risks, also causes cramp, which simply does not make physiological sense, and has recently been discredited by laboratory studies and theoretical flaws (I'll dedicate a separate article to this in the near future)

Similarly, there is no link between fluid loss and heatstroke. Human beings can safely lose big volumes of fluid without their body temperature shooting through the roof. Typically, in a marathon on a reasonably warm day, we lose about 2 to 3 L of fluid over many hours. Faster runners lose more - Haile Gebrselassie is reported to have finished his Berlin World Record 5kg lighter than at the start. We have a race in South Africa, the Comrades Ultra-Marathon, run over 90km, from morning to evening, with temperatures typically in the mid- to high-20s for about six of those hourse, and controlled research has found that most of the field finish with around 2 to 4% body weight loss, a proxy for fluid loss.

These people are not ill. They may be thirsty, and they sure are tired after 11 to 12 hours of exercise, but there is nothing medically wrong with them. Their body temperature is normal for exercise - that is, elevated to perhaps 39-40 degrees, but this is expected. I can all but guarantee that none of the six men who tragically died in South Africa, or any of the other high profile deaths, which tend to happen in people who are running relatively slowly and in cool conditions, have lost anything like 4% of their body weight. So when next this happens (and it will), let's immediately disregard the diagnosis of dehydration being the killer, because it simply isn't true.

Heatstroke - an abnormal physiology in most instances

Heatstroke is a viable candidate for the tragic deaths that sometimes happen, but it's a grossly overstated risk and those who diagnose any athlete's collapse or medical condition on a hot day as 'heatstroke' are also taking a lazy and possibly very wrong option. The reality is that heatstroke is a pretty complex phenomenon, and is likely to involve some kind of pathology. Once again, I'd draw attention to the difference between the perception of being hot and actually getting to the kind of dangerous temperatures that characterize heatstroke. We're not talking about feeling hot, uncomfortable and slowing down or stopping here.

Five years ago, I was a co-author of a paper that was written to investigate five hospitalizations during mass-participation events here in SA. Four people died during a 109-km cycle race, and one was hospitalized during a 56-km Ultra-marathon. As is the media way, all were blamed on dehydration and heatstroke.

However, once the specific cases were investigated, the interesting discovery is that none of these athletes was exercising at the kind of exercise intensity that would be needed to raise their body temperatures to the levels measured. An important point is that these cases actually were CONFIRMED as heatstrokes, based on the symptoms observed in hospital, and their highly elevated body temperatures - all were well above 41 degrees celsius. This is unusual, because many times, the temperature is not measured, but the death is attributed to heatstroke anyway because of "lazy" diagnosis.

The principle here is that body temperature rises during exercise as a result of heat produced by muscle contraction, and the harder we exercise, the higher it goes. We lose much of the heat through convection (wind cooling) and evaporation (sweat), but we "settle" on a temperature up around 39 degrees. That's homeostasis in action.

In these athletes, that clearly hadn't happened. They'd overshot, gained too much heat and ended up critically ill. Now, there are only two ways for this to happen. The normal control of body temperature is a balance between heat production and heat loss. So to overshoot the normal homeostatic control of body temperature, they have either produced excessive amounts of heat, or their heat loss mechanisms have failed (of course, a combination of both is possible too).

But "normal" heat production cannot explain most cases of heatstroke. If you are running a 4-hour marathon, or cycling along at 15 km/hour, you are not producing enough heat to raise your body temperature to critical levels. This is what the athletes were doing in the study. It's different for elite athletes who are doing shorter, high-intensity exercise. Running a 5km or 10km time-trial, with extreme levels of motivation, can put an athlete right on the boundary of what one would call "uncompensable heat production". Closing the final 10km of a marathon at world record pace can push the rate of heat production high enough that if the environment is too warm, it becomes potentially limiting and the athlete must slow down. This is why the world record for the marathon will become more and more difficult to break - it is now close to a thermal limit and so requires absolutely perfect conditions for it to happen. Even a degree too warm over the final 10km is too much. In our lab studies, the highest body temperatures we measure are at the end of 10km time-trials in hot conditions.

But recreational athletes don't produce enough heat to develop heatstroke through normal muscle activity. Therefore, we look at alternative theories - either these individuals are failing to lose heat, or they produced excessive heat from unnatural means. We called that "excessive endothermy" in the paper, and considered it more likely, because convective cooling on a bicycle is large enough that even a loss of sweating can't explain how people overheat so quickly in these events.

I'll never forget being in the medical tent for one of the cases - the runner was brought in, his temperature measured and found to be elevated - above 40. He was placed in a large tub of ice-water for rapid cooling. Over the next half and hour, he got even hotter. Sitting passively in ice, with the most enormous cooling method you can imagine, this athlete was still producing enough heat to push his already high body temperature above 42 degrees celsius.

Also of interest is that many of the documented cases of heatstroke (that is, published in the literature, complete with diagnosis and description), have occurred in cool or moderate conditions, very early on during events, and with low intensities. Here are two examples:

A 17-year old army trainee develops heatstroke (40C) after only 15 min of fast walking at only 8min/km. The air temperature? Only 17C. One hour after admission, his body temperature has climbed to 42.8C, while he remains unconscious (Parnell, 1986)
Runner collapses with a body temperature of 42C only 45 min into a 10km fun run at a moderate temperature of 24C. This study documented what were described as 15 cases of heat problems, ranging from mild to serious, out of a field of 13,000, and it wasn't even particularly warm. Only one was true heatstroke, however, the others were just feeling hotter than usual because they were unacclimatized to the conditions, and this is often confused for 'heat illness' - there's a big difference between feeling hot, and being hot, and training status affects that more than anything (Hughson, 1978)

When you work out the rate of heat production and compare it to the potential rate of heat loss given the documented environmental conditions in these events, you discover that there is no normal way for any of these athletes to overheat unless something goes very wrong (see the Endothermy paper for more).

So the key points from those case studies - there are 18 documented cases, I've only discussed three - is that the athletes who suffer REAL heatstroke most often are not exercising very hard, they're not in impossibly hot conditions, and they show 'abnormal' heat gain even after they've finished exercise, sitting out of the heat (in a bucket of ice, in one case). Clearly, there's something else going on, and heatstroke does not happen just because we run hard on a hot day.

Having said all this, in the case of the six traffic officers, you did see a perfect combination of factors for some of these athletes to develop genuine heatstroke. That's because they were highly motivated (90 jobs available, 1 in 300 chance), untrained (our ability to tolerate and lose heat is poorer when untrained) and running for only 4km, which means a very high relative running intensity, and thus higher rates of heat production.

Were they heatstrokes? Only by measuring body temperatures at the time would this ever be confirmed, and I don't know if this was done. Autopsies may shed further light, if done, because they reveal changes in the muscle that point to excessively high temperatures and pathological conditions such as rhabdomyolysis, which is one of the likelier candidates for the 'abnormal' heat production that I described above.

A colleague of mine, Dr Tertius Kohn, is studying the muscles of animals that are captured or hunted in the wild, because there is evidence of heatstroke in these animals. I once accompanied him on a muscle-obtaining trip, and remember cutting muscle out of an antelope that had been hunted. The muscle was, quite literally, cooked. It resembled a menu item at a restaurant, and his working theory is that under extreme stress, with the right pathology or underlying muscle condition, excessive heat production can overwhelm homeostasis. Is this what happens in humans? Possibly, though too little is known at this point to make any conclusions.

Exercise and sudden death

So if not heatstroke, and if not dehydration (highly, highly unlikely), then what is the most likely cause of death during exercise? Again, this is a topic we've discussed a great deal here on The Science of Sport, and I'd point you to these two articles - one written to discuss potential causes of death after Ryan Shay's death in New York, and another giving some perspective to the issue

But if you really want to learn a bit more about the prevention of sudden cardiac death, then listen to this podcast, by BJSM with Prof Jon Drezner. In it, he talks about the prevalence, the accuracy and sensitivity of screening, the treatment, the prevention and the education.

The problem is this - there are conditions, underlying and dormant, that increase the risk of sudden cardiac events. A precipitating event can take the form of endurance exercise, the result of which is that the athlete, for all intents and purposes healthy and fit (the London Marathon death, Claire Squires, had just climbed Mt Kilimanjaro), can suffer a cardiac event. Drezner describes a prevalence as high as 1 in 40,000, which means that every major city marathon has 'candidates' for this kind of tragic event. So too, the 4-km fitness trial of the traffic officers is likely to expose at least one person to the kind of "precipitating event" to trigger sudden cardiac arrest. It's no guarantee that it happens, and nor is it guaranteed to be limited to only one.

It's quite possible, too, that the prevalence is higher in some populations, either randomly or determined by other existing medical conditions, and that the addition of heat as a stress makes it even more likely that the event will occur. Now, in the case of most marathons, the runners who line up on the starting line are to an extent "self-selected". The 30,000 traffic officers were not, and so in their untrained states, exposed to the stresses of a maximal time-trial, on a very hot day, without screening for those conditions, you have the ingredients for a potential disaster, which is what transpired.

Also, the media coverage is disproportionate in the case of these events occurring during public events. Consider how many cases of cardiac arrest go unnoticed because the person with the risk condition leads a sedentary life. But, when it happens on a football field during a televised match, or during a US-Olympic marathon trial, then the world takes notice, because our expectation is that it shouldn't happen.

Quite what to do about it is difficult. For professional athletes, the screening debate starts up every time there is such an event. Drezner talks about this in detail in the podcast, and I also wrote some thoughts on it here. Treatment is clearer - the risk of dying as a result of a cardiac arrest decreases from about 50% without an emergency defibrillator, to between 5 and 8% with an emergency defibrillator, so the presence of equipment and personnel to administer treatment is crucial.

Ultimately, there will be deaths during exercise that are neither predicted or preventable, at least for now. Proper training, adaptation to the environment, screening and treatment greatly reduce the risk, but don't eliminate it altogether.

When trained runners line up to run a marathon, then even in very difficult environmental conditions, the risks are small and probably unrelated to the conditions. But when untrained individuals, be it fun-run athletes, or aspirant traffic officers, try to run at maximal levels, then even short runs or moderate conditions suddenly start to pose great challenges to the physiology. It's a lesson to heed because it emphasizes the obvious value of training, as well as the importance of staying aware that as much as trained athletes do things that seem mundane, the physiology can be, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, more 'fragile' than we think.

Ross

2012 Year in Review Sports Quiz

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:31:00 +0000

The Science of Sport Year in Review Quiz

2012 is almost at an end, and it's been a year of gold medal triumphs, and more than a few major controversies. Armstrong, Wiggins, Farah, Bolt, Ennis, London, Messi, Spain, Tygart, Kimmage and Walsh were some of the newsmakers of the year, not often for the right reasons, in a year that brought many firsts.

Rather than do my usual year in review series, I thought I'd try to sum up the year with a quiz on some of the major stories of the year. I'm biased heavily in favor of what was covered here on The Science of Sport during the year, so that means a lot of athletics, cycling and of course, the Olympic Games feature heavily in the fifty questions below. You'll have to forgive me for not covering the US-sports and no, there's no Formula One or horse-racing here either!

And I took the opportunity, in providing answers, of editorializing somewhat, and embellishing those answers with some facts and trivia, to sum up what has been a memorable and enthralling year in sport. I know the last month has seen the posting frequency dwindle - let's call it a loss of creative energy, but the plan is to do more posting next year, including more translation of sports science research during slower news times. I'm mindful that there are outstanding journalists who do a better job of reporting the news (e.g: Armstrong and cycling's dramas this year), and so we'll try to return to a more niche-based offering in 2013.

It's difficult to see how 2013 can provide any more drama - there are no Olympic Games, and I can't think of a bigger controversy than Armstrong in 2012! But whatever happens, science or sport, we'll do our very best to cover it, here, and on Twitter and Facebook, so join the community and bring on the New Year!

I take full responsibility for any errors, but I whipped the quiz up quickly, so go easy on the odd omission! The points don't matter anyway - they're like doping controls in the 1990s. There are fifty questions, but most have multiple answers.

The answers are at the end of the quiz. Enjoy! Ross.

Track and field at the London Olympic Games

Name the top five countries on the overall London Olympic Games medal table
What was the winning time in the men’s 100m final at the London Olympic Games?
How many men broke 10 seconds in the 100m final?
Of the fifteen medals available in the men’s ‘sprint’ distance events (100m, 200m, 400m, 400m hurdles, 110m hurdles), how many were won by the USA? How many were won by Jamaica?
So far, only one track and field athlete has been stripped of a gold medal at the 2012 London Olympic Games. Name the athlete and the event where the gold medal changed hands weeks after the medal ceremony
How many track and field defending champions were able to repeat as Gold medalists in London 2012?
Usain Bolt was one of eight multiple individual medalists in track and field in London 2012. Name the other seven athletes who won more than one medal, excluding medals won in relay events.
Trinidad & Tobago won only its second ever Olympic gold medal in London, from an unlikely source. Who was it and in which event?
Controversy in London 2012 surrounded an eventual gold medalist who was first disqualified from running a final because he had not given a maximum effort in a heat of a different event. Who was it, and which event did he go on to win?
There was one track and field event where more than three medals were handed out because of a dead heat/tie for places. Which event was it?

Cycling
Name the three men who won the Grand Tours in 2012
Frank Schleck was suspended during the Tour de France after testing positive for which substance?
Name two of the three men who won stages in two out of three of the Grand Tours this year
Name the dominant Dutch cyclist who won the world cyclo-cross championships, the Giro Donne (including five stage wins), the Olympic Games Road Race and the UCI World Championships.
Which big name team sponsor reacted to cycling's latest doping controversy (precipitated by the Armstrong USADA report) by announcing that they would end a 17-year long association with the sport on December 31 this year?

Track & field
Five world records were set in track and field athletics this year. Name the athletes and the events in which they were set
Name the men’s and women’s winners at the Marathon Major events in 2012
Who were named the IAAF’s male and female athletes of the year in 2012?
Name the Brazilian double amputee who surprisingly beat favorite Oscar Pistorius in the London Paralympic 200m, before ironically being accused of Pistorius of gaining an unfair advantage through the use of technology by increasing the length of his carbon fiber prosthetic blades?
Two American sprinters made news in October when they switched the tartan tracks for ice runways to qualify for the USA bobsled team. One of them was Lolo Jones, the 100m hurdler. Who is the other?

Team sports
Who was named the IRB Rugby Player of the Year for 2012? Who was the IRB Sevens Player of the Year?
Who were the Six Nations Champions of 2012?
Lionel Messi will end the calendar year with 91 goals for club and country, a record setting year for the three-time world player of the year. Whose record did he beat?
In a thrilling end to the English Premier League, the title swung from the blue to the red half of Manchester before finally coming to rest with Manchester City, thanks to two stoppage-time goals in a come-from-behind victory. Who did City beat on the final day, and who were the two players who scored the goals that pulled them passed Manchester United, who had all but begun celebrating their late surge to the title?
Spain completed a historic treble by winning their third consecutive global football title in Kiev in July. They won the Euro2012 title to go with their Euro2008 title, and the 2010 Football World Cup. Who did they beat in each of those three finals, and who were the four goal scorers in the latest triumph? (I know, we're going further back in the memory banks than just 2012 here!)
Which nation won the ICC World Twenty20 title in Sri Lanka in October, and who did they beat in the final?
Name the highest run-scorers in Test, one-Day and Twenty20 cricket , and the highest wicket-taking bowlers in each of the three formats of the game during the past calendar year (as of 27 December this year)
One USA-sport question, easy for our US-readers, but not as simple for those outside. Who are the current NFL, NBA and MLB champions?
The Ryder Cup produced one of the year's most dramatic comebacks in Chicago in September, as the European team came from a 6-10 deficit to retain the Cup. Name the player who sank a clutch five-foot putt on the 18th hole of the 11th singles match to give Europe an unassaible 14-13 lead? Who did he beat?
Name the number-1 ranked MEN'S teams in the following three sports: Handball, field hockey, volleyball

The business of sport
The most recent TV rights deal to broadcast the English Premier League is worth £3.2 billion over three years, in effect from 2013. This is a jump of 71%, and will return the EPL to the status of being the most lucrative broadcast deal. Which league currently tops the list?
Which three sports brands were named by Forbes as being the most valuable in 2012?
According to a similar Forbes’ list, which three sports teams top the list of “most valuable teams” in 2012? And yes, I know how fraught with difficulty it is to value these teams and brands, so I’m going by those lists, which are disputable (and even disagree with one another, if you read the closely)
Last Forbes’ based question – name the top five highest earning athletes in 2012. The earnings consist of salaries/winnings plus endorsements
Which tennis player caused controversy in 2012 when he said the following: "men's tennis is ahead of women's tennis" and "men spend twice as long on court as women do at Grand Slams" to re-ignite the debate about equal pay for men and women?

Other Olympic sports
Michael Phelps retired after London 2012 as the most decorated Olympian in history. How many gold medals, and how many total medals has he won?
Name the men's and women's allround gymnastics gold-medalists from London
The women's triathlon event in London featured one of the closest finishes of the Games, as a photo-finish after nearly two hours of racing was required to separate gold from silver. Who were the two athletes involved?
One of the powerhouse nations of swimming, Australia endured a disappointing Games. How many gold medals did Australia win in the London pool?
Seven nations won their first ever Olympic medals in London. Can you name three of them?
Prior to London 2012, Sir Steven Redgrave was the most decorated British Olympic athlete with one bronze and five gold medals between 1984 and 2000. Once the flame went out in London, he was third on the British list for total medals, and second for golds. Which two athletes jumped ahead of Redgrave thanks to their London hauls?
There was controversy in the women's football tournament in London, when one of the teams refused to take the field after the wrong flag had been shown on the jumbo screen. Which team was involved and what was the specific error?
Two fifteen year old swimmers won gold medals in the pool in London. Name them
Who were the flag bearers for the hosts at the opening and closing ceremonies of this year's London Olympics?
How many medals were awarded at the London Olympic Games (to the nearest ten will do!), and how does this compare to medals at the Paralympic Games?

Tennis
Men’s tennis’ big four continued to dominate the Grand Slams in 2012, sharing the four Grand slams. Djokovic won the Australian Open, Nadal the French, Federer Wimbledon and Murray the US Open. They also occupied 12 of the potential 16 semi-final places between them, leaving only four slots for other players to reach Grand Slam semi-finals. Name the three players (one of them did it twice)
Which player won the most singles titles on the men's ATP Tour in 2012?
Which player won the most singles titles on the women's WTA Tour?
Who set a record for the fastest-ever recorded serve in an official ATP event this year?
The women's world number one ranking changed hands three times in 2012. Name the three women, who at some stage during the year, occupied the number one spot

And here are the answers

Track and field at the Olympics

USA, China, GB, Russia, South Korea
9.63s, by Bolt, a new Olympic Record
Seven. Asafa Powell was the only man to fail to go under 10, and that was arguably only because of an injury that forced him to pull up about 40m from the line. He finished in 11.99s. Three men broke 9.80s, incidentally – Bolt, Blake and Gatlin
Four – Justin Gatlin in the 100m, Merrit and Richardson in the 110m hurdles, and Michael Tinsley in the 400m hurdles. Jamaica won six, largely thanks to Bolt and Blake going gold and silver twice, with Warren Weir completing a podium sweep in the 200m, and Hansle Parchment winning bronze in the 110m hurdles. The other medals (five) were won by athletes from other Caribbean nations – Puerto Rico, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Trinidad & Tobago.
In the 400m, no American even qualified for the final, while Caribbean islands claimed all three medals, signaling the next phase in the shift in power in the sprint events. This had begun in Beijing, where Jamaica’s women won the 100m, 200m, 400m hurdles, and 4 x 100m relay, while their men (that is, Usain Bolt), won the 100m, 200m, and the 4 x 100m relay. The USA women got some consolation winning the 4 x 100m relay in London, in a new World Record, to dethrone the Jamaican women.
Nadzeya Ostapchuk of Belarus was stripped of her shotput gold medal after failing a test for the steroid metenolone. The gold medal was awarded to Valerie Adams of New Zealand
Men: Usain Bolt repeated twice - the 100m and 200m. The Jamaican men’s 4 x 100m relay team. Tomas Majewski of Poland in the Shotput
Women: Shelly Ann Fraser in the 100m, Tirunesh Dibaba in the women’s 10,000m. The USA women in the 4 x 400m relay. Valerie Adams in the shotput via the disqualification of Ostapchuk. Barbora Spotakova in the javelin
Mo Farah won double gold in the 5,000m and 10,000m. Yohan Blake won two silvers. Will Claye (USA) won silver in the triple jump and bronze in long jump.
For the women: Tirunesh Dibaba won gold at 10,000m and bronze in the 5,000m. Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce won gold in the 100m and silver in the 200m. Carmelita Jeter won silver and bronze in the same two events. Vivian Cheruiyot won silver in the 5,000m and bronze in the 10,000m
It was Keshorn Walcott, who won gold in the men’s javelin
Taoufik Makhloufi of Algeria had already qualified for the 1500m final when he ran an 800m heat, effectively jogging 200m before stepping off the track. He was disqualified, but later reinstated after providing a medical certificate of injury. That “injury” didn’t hamper him in the 1500m final, which he won in dominant fashion
Men’s high jump saw a three way tie for bronze – Barshim, Drouin and Grabarz all cleared 2.29m and could not be separated on count-back, and so five medals were awarded. Gold went to Ivan Ukhov of Russia, who cleared 2.38m

Cycling
Giro d’Italia: Ryder Hesjedal
Tour de France: Bradley WigginsVuelta Espana: Alberto Contador
Xipamide, a diuretic. Schleck initially claimed to have been poisoned. His case was heard in December, with a decision expected at the end of January
Mark Cavendish – Giro and Tour; Joaquim Rodriguez – Giro and Vuelta; Alejandro Valverde - Tour and Vuelta
Marianne Vos
Rabobank, who in a statement expressed a lack of confidence that the status of cycling could change "for the better in the foreseeable future"

Track and field
David Rudisha broke his own 800m WR to win the Olympic gold in London. Aries Merritt broke the 110m hurdles record post-London. Ashton Eaton broke the decathlon world record in the USA Olympic Trials. Jamaica’s men broke the relay record in London.

The USA women’s 4 x 100m relay team won gold in a WR time in London
Boston: Wesley Korir and Sharon Cherop (both Kenya)
London: Wilson Kipsang and Mary Keitany, both Kenya
Olympic Games: Stephen Kiprotich of Uganda and Tiki Gelana of Ethiopia
Berlin: Geoffrey Mutai (Kenya) and Aberu Kebede of EthiopiaChicago: Tsegaye Kebede and Atsede Baysa, both of Ethiopia
New York: No running due to Hurricane Sandy

The scoreboard reads three Kenyan wins to one Ethiopian and one Ugandan on the men’s side, and three Ethiopian wins to two Kenyan wins on the women’s side. On the other hand, looking at the top 10 times of the year, Ethiopia had seven, Kenya three on the men’s side, whereas it was five apiece on the women’s side. So we’ll call 2013 an even year in the East African battle, and acknowledge that it was Uganda who claimed perhaps the biggest single victory with Kiprotich’s Olympic gold!
Usain Bolt and Allyson Felix. For Bolt, it was the fourth time in five years that he had received the honour (David Rudisha was the exception in 2011). It was Felix’s first such award
Alan Fonteles Cardoso Oliveira, aged 20. His blades were later confirmed to be within the allowable limits according to the formula used by the sports governing body, but the incident highlighted the complexity of technological devices that affect running performance without known or agreed upon standards, and hint at what is to come when other athletes emerge with similar technology in the future
Tianna Madison, a 100m sprinter who ran the first leg of the USA's world record breaking relay team in London 2012.

Team sports
Dan Carter of New Zealand, his second such award (2005). The Sevens player of the year was New Zealand's Tomasi Cama, who won the award for the first time
Wales, who were unbeaten throughout the tournament
Gerd Muller, who in 1972 scored 85 goals for West Germany and Bayern Munich. To give perspective and context to Messi’s year, the stats show that he scored his goals in 69 matches – 79 in 60 for Barcelona and 12 in 9 for Argentina. That’s 1.3 goals per match, lower than Muller who scored 85 in 60 (1.4 per game). For more statistics, including a video of all 91 (in just over 10 minutes), check out this link
City beat QPR at the Etihad Stadium, thanks to a 92^nd minute goal from Edin Dzeko and a 94^th minute goal from Sergio Aguero. The title had by that stage looked to have slipped from their grasp, as United had beaten Sunderland, and were virtually celebrating before news of the City comeback reached the Stadium of Light
Euro 2008 - Germany; World Cup 2010 - Netherlands; Euro 2012 - Italy, who were beaten 4-0 courtesy goals by David Silva, Jordi Alba, Fernando Torres and Juan Mata
West Indies, who beat the hosts Sri Lanka by 36 runs
Run-scorers: Test – Michael Clarke of Australia, One-day – Kumar Sangakarra of Sri Lanka; Twenty20 – Martin Guptill of New Zealand
Wicket-takers: Test – Herath of Sri Lanka; One-day – Lasith Malingo of Sri Lanka; Saeed Ajmal of Pakistan
NFL - New York Giants; NBA - Miami Heat; MLB - San Francisco Giants
Germany's Martin Kaymer, who beat Steve Stricker 1 up. It was Kaymer's first point of the Ryder Cup, having played in only one of the previous four matchups
Handball - Germany; Field hockey - Germany; Volleyball - Brazil

The business of sport
Italian Serie A
Nike, worth $15.9 billion; ESPN at $11.5 billion; Adidas at $6.8 billion. The complete list can be found here
Manchester United, valued at $2.23 billion, followed by Real Madrid at $1.88 billion and then the New York Yankees at $1.85 billion. For the complete list see this link
Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Tiger Woods, LeBron James and Roger Federer. Mayweather tops the list purely on winnings/direct earnings with $85 million. Pacquiao is largely winnings-based, with small endorsements, whereas Woods, James and Federer rely on endorsements (all significantly made up of Nike deals). Woods remains the holder of the most lucrative endorsement “suite” ($55 million), whereas Haloti Ngata of the Baltimore Ravens, down in twelfth place, is the highest earner of any team-sport athlete without endorsements. Full list and breakdown can be found here
Gilles Simon, speaking at Wimbledon. Not surprisingly, there was a backlash, though Simon claimed that many of the male players on the Tour agreed with him, but would not speak out because of the charged nature of the debate

Other Olympic sports
22 in total, 18 of which are gold. The next highest in history is Larisya Latynina, who won 18 in total, nine of which were gold. Phelps’ medal haul, incidentally, puts him level with Argentina and Austria on the all-time medal list for countries. He is one gold medal ahead of Jamaica, who should pass him in 2016!
Men - Kohei Uchimura of Japan; Women - Gabby Douglas of the USA
Nicola Spirig, the eventual winner from Switzerland, and Sweden's Lisa Norden, who got silver
Only one. They actually won ten medals in total, which was joint third highest on the swimming medal table. However, their gold medal count placed them only seventh in the official rankings, which are done by gold medals. That solitary gold came from the women's 4 x 100m freestyle relay team. For context, in 2000, 2004 and 2008, Australia won 5, 7 and 6 medals, respectively. It didn't help that a good number of swimmers who won gold medals representing other countries were prepared in or coached by Australians
Any three from: Gabon, Grenada, Botswana, Montenegro, Bahrain, Cyprus and Guatemala
Sir Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins. Hoy won two golds in London, taking his tally to seven, consisting of six golds and one silver. Wiggins won cycling's time-trial gold medal to join Hoy on seven total medals, made up of four golds, one silver and two bronzes
The North Korean team refused to play the South Korean flag was displayed on the jumbo screen as the team was being introduced during warm-up. The match was delayed by an hour, the mistake corrected and an official apology made by organizers
Ruta Meilutyte won the 100m breaststroke title and Katie Ledecky won the 800m title in an Olympic record. The other famous teenager is Ye Shiwen, who won the 200m and 400m Individual Medley, but she is 16 years old.
Chris Hoy at the Opening, Ben Ainslie at the closing
962 medals in total (302 were gold), compared to 1522 medals, and 503 golds, in the Paralympic Games

Tennis
David Ferrer at the French Open and US Open; Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at Wimbledon; and Thomas Berdych at the US Open. All the other semi-final places were taken by Djokovic, Federer, Nadal or Murray
David Ferrer of Spain, who won seven titles. Djokovic and Federer were next with six. One half of the Bryan brothers, Mike, won seven doubles titles and one mixed doubles title.
Serena Williams, who won sevens singles titles, two of which were Grand Slams, as well as the Olympic Gold, and the season ending WTA championships. Sara Errani of Italy was the most successful player on either Tour, winning a total of twelve titles, eight of which were doubles titles
Samuel Groth of Australia, playing in the Busan Open Challenger Tournament in May, was clocked at 263 km/hour, beating the previous record held by Croatia’s Ivo Karlovic (251 km/hour). This remains the fastest in an ATP World Tour or Davis Cup level match. Groth had two other serves faster than Karlovic’s previous record, but lost the match
Caroline Wozniacki, Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova. Wozniacki started the year as #1, but lasted only a month before Azarenka assumed it after the Australian Open. She held it for just over four months before Sharapova became #1 in June. That lasted one month, before it went back to Azarenka, who has held it since, despite Serena's late season dominance. Wozniacki ended the year ranked tenth.

A fictional portrayal of running injuries

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:05:00 +0000

So this time of the year is historically a bit slow on the site, although this weekend the New York City Marathon will be run in spite of the recent carnage brought to the region by Hurricane Sandy. Interestingly the decision to go ahead with the race has sparked a bit of debate, with maybe the starkest quote against the decision coming from the Staten Island borough president: " “My God. What we have here is terrible, a disaster. If they want to race, let them race with themselves. This is no time for a parade.”

That could be considered a bit harsh, but on the ground the perception is likely different, so it is probably understandable why he thinks the use of city resources for the race is frivolous. But nevertheless the race is set to go off as planned, and the part that is getting less coverage is that the race activities have been pared back. For example they canceled the opening ceremony on Friday and the 5km race on Saturday, and they also revised their cancellation policy to accommodate those whose travel plans were fouled by the weather.

As normal, we will analyse the race in real time providing we can access a live feed and/or the splits, so watch the site for updates followed by our standard race report.

But the real reason for this post is comic relief, and to share a link our friends at LetsRun.com posted the other day. We posted it on our Facebook page, and it has received lots of views over there so we figured we would share it for site readers, too. In the words of one reader on our Facebook page, "72 hours of YouTube video is uploaded every minute and that is a real 3.5 minute gem. . ."!

Those of you in academia who have experience with the peer review process might have come across the video spoof of that process. It first appeared several years ago, and since then a few different versions have been posted, as well as spoofs of other topics using the same video clip---"Hitler finds out Osama bin Laden is dead," "Hitler finds out Obama won,"
and also, "Hitler finds out Chuck Norris is coming," just to name a few.

The clip is from the German film "Downfall," and depicts a scene in which Hitler is forced to realize his defeat. German speakers will have to try to ignore the audio and focus on the spoof sub-titles, but here is one of the original spoofs of the peer-review process. Once you have picked yourself up off the floor and have stopped laughing, try going back and reading the two most popular comments on YouTube, they are almost equally as funny!

Interestingly, the original clip from the movie with real subtitles is also on YouTube, and the uploader of that clip actually mentions it was all the parodies that made him watch the real film!

And the most recent spoof added on October 26 pokes fun at previously injured runners everywhere. So if you have ever been injured, especially in the run up to a big event or goal, this will resonate particularly well.

Language alert: there is foul language in the subtitles (not the original German), so if you don't like seeing the f-bomb on your screen then this is not for you.

Enjoy, and good luck to any readers who will be running on Sunday!

UCI uphold USADA findings - surprised?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:20:00 +0000

Could have gone either way. . .

On Monday, as scheduled, the UCI held a press conference to announce it would recognize the reasoned decision submitted by USADA and not appeal to the CAS. Honestly, based on the UCI's history, it was 50/50. I don't think any one who follows the sport would have been surprised had they chosen to appeal the decision up to CAS. Yes, many big sponsors had already "endorsed" the decision by sacking Armstrong, but again given the UCI's past behavior it was plausible they could appeal. Perhaps they realised they had no choice but to uphold the decision, perhaps there was pressure from somewhere else like IOC (unlikely, but we don't know), but whatever the reason, they chose wisely in our opinion. It does not redeem them by any stretch, and they should still be removed and replaced by new leadership, but that is the topic of another post!

We have been sharing links and comments on our Facebook page, so if you have not visited, check there for some discussion and links. Our page is a great way to keep the info and discussion rolling when we don't have exhaustive hours to spend digesting the data ourselves and synthesizing a post, which is most of the time these days.

Exploring the USADA case

So I had some time Monday night during an exam to pore over some of the documents from the USADA case. If you visit the USADA website, you might see why it took them over month to produce the evidence to the UCI---it must have taken them that long just to upload all the files. Kidding aside, though, it is an absolute mountain of detailed information and evidence.

Especially relevant to this week's news, though, is the correspondence between UCI President Pat McQuaid and the USADA. Recall that McQaid first stated at the outset that the UCI would stay out and let the USADA proceed with their investigation. . .only to change his tune later and challenge the organisation's jurisdiction. . .only to take another about face and now validate the findings and decision by USADA. It's farcical that the president of a global sporting organisation behaves like this, and that as late September 17, still was challenging the jurisdiction USADA had over Armstrong.

It's a rule violation, not an illegal activity

A common argument that keeps coming up from supporters is that there is no "evidence" to support the sanction, or cries that the information provided by USADA hardly passed for evidence. This is amusing since witness testimony contributes to the body of evidence in legal cases, so I don't think that argument really works.

But more importantly, we have to be clear that USADA did not evaluate whether or not Armstrong broke a law. Instead, they evaluated whether or not he broke a rule, specifically as outlined in the rule books for cycling and triathlon during the years in question. Whether or not Armstrong is charged with a crime in the United States remains to be seen. Currently people are murmuring about the possibility of a perjury charge, since on at least one occasion during the SCA hearings he testified under oath. Can a prosecutor prove he lied? We don't know---that is not our area here, you have to visit our sister site The Law of Sport to read about that.

No human rights, constitutional rights, or any other rights have been violated. USADA operated within its responsibilities as an anti-doping organisation. And for anyone whose doping paradigm is still stuck in last century, sanctioning athletes in the absence of an "analytical finding" is entirely acceptable, and in this case Armstrong is just another athlete on the growing list of those who have in fact been sanctioned without ever testing positive (officially).

So don't bemoan the process. If you want to support him as a cancer survivor, please do. By some accounts it's a near miracle he survived such an advanced case of cancer that had spread throughout his body. But it has now become patently obvious that at least since 1998, all of his cycling success was achieved by breaking the rules. Was the era fraught with doping? Absolutely, and the UCI more than anyone else is to blame for t hat. But that does not make it ok that anyone broke the rules. And worse, he and his foundation benefited immensely as a direct result of his sporting success, which was fraudulent. His net worth is estimated upwards of $125 million, and does anyone reading think it would be that high had he not won seven tours?

Be informed: read the USADA documents

The information there is sometimes old, most of the time revealing, and always interesting. If you are a cycling fan or want to have all the facts to form your own informed opinion, we suggest you wade through them. Due to the volume there is likely to be more analysis of them in time as people can consume and digest all the info there.

For now, visit our Facebook page to follow the comments and links we post there (and please "Like" us if you have not already, that's social currency for us!).

Jonathan

Sponsors overboard & a guest post on legalized doping, the Armstrong dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:56:00 +0000

It's not about the evidence: Sponsors retreat, and a guest post on legalizing doping, amnesty and more

It began with the swoosh, as Nike issued a statement yesterday saying that in the face of "seemingly (emphasis mine) insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade", they were making the "sad" decision to end their association with him. Then followed a host of his long-time supporters - RadioShack, Anheuser-Busch, Giro, and most recently, Trek bicycles. Armstrong also stepped down as chairman of his LiveStrong foundation, though he remains on its board, and both Nike and Trek have pledged their continued support for the foundation, if not for its founder.

Here's where the lines get blurred. Drawing a clear distinction between Armstrong and Livestrong requires setting aside the foundations on which Livestrong was built. Livestrong may deserve continued support, of course, and one would not want to undermine the work it has done for awareness and to support those with cancer (but not research, I have to point out), but the corporate backing of Livestrong independent of Armstrong is the sponsorship equivalent of a front. Armstrong's continued presence on the board and the 'shared DNA' between him and Livestrong means that any corporate backer will never fully separate itself from the athlete, whose success has now been shown to everyone to be built on cheating, lying and intimidation.

There's also the reality that Nike and co had little alternative than to make a move to distance themselves from Armstrong. It was the only move left on the chessboard for them. Sadly, it wasn't the details and 1000 pages of evidence in the USADA report that prompted yesterday's procession of abandonments, but the growing resentment and backlash from the public towards, in particular, Nike and Oakley. Telling as it may be, it is unsurprising that companies are more concerned with the opinions held by their consumer markets than with the "trivial" matter of breaking the rules of sport to sell more product, and yesterday was a good illustration of this. It would be oversimplifying it to say that for the likes of Nike, it is a simple question of "Will we sell more product with or without Lance Armstrong?" Brands consider more than just profit and loss, and brand equity has an unquantifiable component to it. However, on both the P&L basis, and the brand equity, some time in the last week, the balance has tilted in favor of the "without", hence their action. Continuing the association with Armstrong produced a net downside, and so we should not be too quick to commend the sponsors' actions yesterday.

Then there are the very clear and direct allegations that the sponsors were not merely ignorant, but complicit in what USADA called the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Nike were alleged to contribute to pay-offs to the UCI to bury doping offences (as per Kathy Lemond's affadavit) and other sponsors are alleged to have spoken openly about doping or harshly condemned those who opposed the Armstrong myth (Trek's statement included no apology to Lemond). Whether yesterday's retreat spares them the scrutiny to confirm these allegations (made for example by David Walsh, and we've seen that he is worth paying attention to) remains to be seen.

Stepping back to be mindful of the big picture once again, it is interesting to consider how this impacts on the UCI. Once Nike acted, other sponsors were compelled to follow suit - you could hardly be the minnow sponsor remaining steadfast in support while the big ones are jumping ship. Does the UCI decision change in any way as a result? It's difficult to see that yesterday directly impacts on them, but it does emphasize once again how deep the issue was, and just how dramatically inadequate UCI leadership was during this period.

And on an even larger scale is the question about why Armstrong is so squarely the center of attention when it is becoming clearer and clearer that the entire sport had this problem? That is a question which is addressed in the guest article below. Written by Dr John McGowan, who is the Academic Director of the Department of Applied Psychology at Canterbury Christ Church University in Kent, it tackles the following three questions:

Should we offer amnesty to convicted dopers?
Should doping be legalized?
Why does Lance Armstrong provoke such particular ire?

Dr McGowan emailed me a few weeks ago to request this piece, and given my own time constraints, and my desire to hear views from outside, this seemed an excellent opportunity to host our first "guest post" on the site. It's something I hope to do much more often in the future, provided articles contribute value and fall within the scope of the site. As some of you may know, I spent two years working in sports sponsorship and business, and the big-picture, strategic thinking where commercial interests intersect with sports performance and science is a particular interest. So the last week has been enthralling, if only to see how reactions have swung, and why.

Dr McGowan's piece, unedited, touches on some of the themes, including the legalization of doping argument, and how to police sport better in the future.

Ross

Lance Armstrong: It's not about the doping (Dr John McGowan)

As the time approaches for cycling chiefs to decide if they accept the recent rulings of the US Anti-Doping Agency, I’ve been wondering what to think about Lance Armstrong. Clearly many feel the evidence of rule-breaking, cover-up and intimidation is so overwhelming it’s high time he got his comeuppance. Despite everything though, he still has his partisans. Interestingly however, even some of them don’t care if he was doper. As commentator Gary Imlach commented,“an argument about Lance Armstrong is almost a faith-based matter”.

Amid the storm of claim and counter-claim one piece in particular caught my attention. On a site called Practical Ethics, Julian Savulescu and Bennett Foddy (both of Oxford University) argue that the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs is such that there need to be important changes in cycling (and perhaps other sports too). However, unlike USADA and the majority of journalistic opinion, their prescription is that, instead of punishing rule-violators andtightening testing, we should be offering amnesty to drug-takers and relaxingthe rules on doping.

The Practical Ethics article raises issues of justice, liberty and expectations of public figures: evidence that cycling can be about a lot more than skinny guys pedalling up hills (though I’m personally quite fond of that bit). Specifically their piece poses three interesting questions: should we offer amnesties to those caught doping, and should we have more liberal rules? And why, when so many others are implicated, does Lance Armstrong provoke such particular ire?

Is a doping amnesty a good idea?

This isn’t something only advocated by those sympathetic to doping. The rationale was outlined in a Scientific American article a few years ago (text-only version here) by Michael Shermer. To lower drug use in cycling he suggested a first step would be to,

“Grant immunity for all athletes pre-2008... Immunity will enable retired athletes to work with governing bodies and anti-doping agencies for improving the... system.”

The benefits of dopers confessing, and telling the authorities how they did it, are envisaged as bolstering a post-amnesty regime of more stringent testing and harsher punishments. While there is evidence that the last two elements are effective, the question of amnesties is more difficult. The motives to conceal doping (financial or retaining your reputation) still likely to be very strong. Unless you were already being investigated, hanging on to your palmarès might not necessarily provide an incentive to fess up.

A second problem is the seriousness with which people take the message, “I know we said we meant it last time but this time we really mean it.” Behavioural psychology would suggest that such intermittent reinforcement of rule breaking (by getting off) might make giving the finger to authority more rather than less tempting. It’s also worth considering where an amnesty would leave those who did try and play within the rules. While it’s probably unrealistic to think that they might be awarded titles stripped from others, it does seem somewhat unfair on them that some people would get the slate wiped clean.

For all these reasons many of us might struggle with an amnesty. It’s worth noting that the governing body of cycling have recently come to the same conclusion, though perhaps for different reasons. There is evidence though that sometimes humans let an aversion to unfairness get in the way of bigger gains. It could be a reluctance that’s worth getting over though. It might be in all our interests us all to bail out people in negative equity though it may feel like rewarding those who borrowed irresponsibly. We use amnesties and lenient sentences in criminal trials all the time to produce (hopefully) wider benefits. It may stick in the throat but it’s often worth trying to swallow.

Of course the discussion so far has been about amnesty as a tool to stop doping. If you would be happy with more liberal rules, amnesties may be less problematic. Why wouldn’t you have an amnesty if you decided doping was OK?

Should doping rules be relaxed?

It’s worth bearing in mind that simply prohibiting something society is concerned about is not always the best way to control its use. For example, the effects of laws prohibiting recreational drugs have often had mixed results, especially when it comes to regulating safe supplies. There is also the issue of personal liberty. In cycling, arguments for the rights of athletes to take what they want in order to perform go back at least to the great Italian champion Fausto Coppi.

Savulescu and Foddy (also see this more detailed paper) use these arguments to call into question several principles underlying the World Anti-Doping Agency Code. In particular they challenge:

the idea that anti-doping measures will ever have a significant impact,
the view that competition enhanced by pharmacology is not desirable, and
the principle that curbing doping means fairer and safer sport.

These areas have been discussed extensively in other postings. In particular, regular readers will have some knowledge of advances in anti -doping paradigms and might conclude that Savulescu and Foddy are overly pessimistic about tackling the issue. So let’s say we can have an impact on doping. Maybe not eliminate it but certainly achieve reductions. Should we try?

On Savulescu and Foddy’s second challenge (to the illegitimacy of doped competition) it’s often pointed out that drugs may affect competitors differently. This might distort contests that many feel should be based primarily on biological potential and training. This issue is perhaps a matter of taste. A vision of the human body as a kind of laboratory-cum-Formula 1 car competing with the aid of the most cutting-edge science (including pharmaceuticals) might appeal to some but repel others. If it does seem a bit WWE for your taste it may be worth thinking why.

If you can accept such a vision of sport, what about fairness and safety? Inequalities related to wealth, diet and demographic factors are legion and it’s naive indeed to suggest that eliminating doping automatically equals fair sport. However, introducing more liberal rules, especially related to a potentially expensive commodity, would seem very likely to skew the playing field even more in favour of the wealthy. Still, there was a time when having a coach was seen as an unfair advantage so I guess it’s possible that I’m just being like the old duffers who were snooty to Harold Abrahams in Chariots of Fire.

As with fairness, it may be rather simplistic to insist that doping-free sport eliminates risks. Elite sport in particular can reward all sorts of risk-taking, but opening the door to more drug use again seems to potentially worsen the problem. For this author at least it’s this issue of safety that finally leads to a parting of ways with Savulescu and Foddy. I’m not sure I can get comfortable with a sport where a legitimate route to winning is for young athletes to push the limits of pharmaceutical assistance. Should I be comfortable with sport that encourage pushing the limits in other ways? Perhaps not. But that doesn’t mean I want to open another avenue of risk. There is the possibility of improving safety with medical supervision, but a glance at the motley collection of doping medics who populate recent sport memoirs leaves me a little low on confidence that this would help.

The involvement of those dubious doctors, though, highlights a counter-argument and brings us back to the issue of illegality itself compromising safety. As with recreational drugs, if a substance is permitted there may be a greater incentive to improve its safety (rather than at present where the emphasis is on undetectability), and for people of greater integrity to become involved in its supervision. In the end the issue pivots on whether you can argue convincingly enough that, as in the case of something like heroin, prohibition actively contributes to the risks via dodgy suppliers, unsafe drugs or badly controlled administration. If someone could make this case might it change things?

Why Lance Armstrong?

“Wear yellow for Armstrong? Fucked if I will. Wear it for Fignon? In a heartbeat.”

@festinagirl

Though they didn’t broach this subject explicitly, Savulescu and Foddy’s arguments did get me thinking about why many seem to have such particularly negative feelings about the man formerly known as winner of seven Tours de France. The New Yorker’s Michael Specter, author of a famous profile in 2002, recently pronounced that now Armstrong “is nothing”. Really? Nothing? While there's a case for doping being outside the rules, there are clearly far greater wrongs in the world. Though it’s tempting to see dopers as simply cheats who take unfair advantage, the experiences of athletes suggest a far more complicated picture than baddies who did and goodies who resisted. But, as the quote from the estimable Festina Girl suggests, we seem disinclined to cut Armstrong slack even compared to other admitted dopers.

Here are three possible explanations for why we are so down on Lance. One thing they have in common is that none of them suggest the main problem is simply taking performance-enhancing drugs. To coin a phrase: it’s not about the doping.

1. Unlike many others, Armstrong hasn’t admitted fault and asked for forgiveness: a well trodden path for celebrity transgressors. Instead he has doubled down on a career of denials and cast himself as a victim of unfair accusations. This may satisfy the loyalists but seems guaranteed to infuriate everyone else. Of course the potential consequences for him go far beyond annoyance. Potential litigation over sponsorship deals and prize money are looming large. Doping is one thing but clearly lying is quite another. (My addition: as is the possibility of perjury charges considering that some of these lies have happened under oath)

2. Armstrong has behaved very badly towards anyone who has threatened him: a major element of the USADA case . Of course there is no rule that sporting champions have to be nice. Many famously seem not to be. Few however have been as publically contemptuous of their doubters as Armstrong after the 2005 Tour de France (“I’m sorry that you can’t dream big”). Whatever you think of revelations from disgruntled ex-friends, statements like this are asking for schadenfreude.

3. I suspect the main reason for the strength of reaction is to do with what Armstrong has received from cycling: wealth, fame and status far greater than any other cyclist. This makes him vulnerable to the “Tiger Woods Effect”. During Wood’s sex-scandal a few years back the question arose of whether his behaviour would compromise his standing and, crucially, his endorsement contracts. Surely we were beyond holding a man’s private indiscretions against him? The business journalist James Surowieki suggested that actually Woods was in line for some big losses. The reason was the way he was perceived in the public mind: as mentally tough and possessing almost superhuman discipline. It turned out that, when confronted with a line of blonde cuties throwing themselves at his feet, he was actually just like most other guys. Tiger had effectively undermined his own brand.

(My addition: in sponsorship, a fundamental concept is that of 'transferred attributes', in that the attributes of the sponsored athlete are meant to be transferred, in the mind of the consumer, to the product. Endorsement relies in part on the (false) perception that it's the Wilson tennis racket, or Adidas boots, that make Federer or Messi so talented. Puma must be fast because Bolt is. Drinking Red Bull must be cool because Felix Baumgartner skydives from outer space, and so on. When Nike invested in "hope" and "courage" and "hard work" of the Armstrong story, the most damaging thing imaginable would be to introduce "deceit", "immorality" and "short cuts". For this reason, their endorsement fails anyway. Remember when Paula Radcliffe failed to finish the 2004 Olympic Marathon? It damaged sponsors because their association with her was on going the distance, and not quitting. Clearly, some transgressions are worse than others, notwithstanding that some are just downright illegal)

So what is (or was) Lance’s public image? Cancer survivor, ferocious competitor and charity campaigner are all well established. I’d go further and suggest the essence of brand Armstrong is actually hero. How does being a hero square up not only with doping, but also with deceit? Throw in the actions of a bully, and the strain between the emerging picture and the brand reaches breaking point. Something has to give and his hero status looks unlikely to withstand such an onslaught. Where this leaves his charitable foundation is something else again.

Another way to look at it though is to consider the possibility that Armstrong is not quite as reprehensible as all that. It could be that we are seeing (as Tyler Hamilton and others have suggested) someone trapped inside a lie that’s too big for easy escape and driven by fear. Fear of failing, of discovery, of loss of the esteem which some still have. How would most people deal with that? How would you? Armstrong’s public stance of studied (or pretend) indifference is quite agonising to watch. It may be that that he is simply an ordinary person, albeit in extraordinary circumstances, with weaknesses and flaws like the rest of us. And this is the heart of his problem: if you’re Lance Armstrong, the journey to just being an ordinary guy is a long, long way down.

Dr John McGowan

Year/Academic Director,

Department of Applied Psychology

Canterbury Christ Church University

Kent

TN3 0TG

USADA Reasoned Decision

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:14:00 +0000

USADA's reasoned decision: The evidence

At the bottom of this post, you'll find the 202-page Reasoned Decision that was released by the US Anti Doping Agency today. A long read, but a comprehensive summary of USADA's investigation into what their chief Travis Tygart described in an earlier statement as a system "professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices". He further referred to the US Postal run scheme as "a program organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules and who still play a major and active role in sport today"

Strong words, and below you'll be able to read the 202-basis for them. You'll find the witness testimonies of 15 former team-mates (no doubt you have already seen statements from George Hincapie and Michael Barry, Levi Leipheimer and the Slipstream team that includes Danielson, Vandevelde and Zabriskie confessing their doping), as well as emails, financial statements, scientific data and lab test results.

I confess that I haven't yet gotten through the document, but only scanned it. I may be reading well into the night, and probably tomorrow. But it'll be here for a while, so do take your time. In fact, you should probably look at this USADA document as the sequel to Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle's book - print it out, and read it as if it were a dryer, more factual and detailed version of that particular expose.

Also, if you're following the story on Twitter, then there are a few people who I'd highly recommend for the short, sharp and accurate insights on this story as it continues to develop. They are, in no particular order:

Shane Stokes, David Walsh, NY Velocity, UCI Overlord, cycletard, The Race Radio, Edward Pickering, David Epstein, Bonnie Ford, Joe Lindsey, Juliet Macur and of course, when he comments on this latest story, Paul Kimmage

The links below contain the Twitter handles for these people - they won't miss a thing in the coming days (whereas I might!):

Essential Twitter accounts 1

Essential Twitter accounts 2

And final thought on the day's evidence and events:

Hincapie and co are today being hailed for coming out and telling the truth. And I agree that this is a day of progress for the sport. Tyler Hamilton himself described it as "a big step for the future of our sport".

But at the same time, I would allow for the possibility of some ambivalent feelings about these statements. I think back to the now famous occasion where Paul Kimmage challenged Armstrong in a press conference and Armstrong brutally cut him down, using cancer as his weapon. Seated alongside him was Hincapie. This was representative of the entire system for many years - these were all men who were silent, wealthy as a result of their complicity in the cheating, and witness to the destruction of many innocent people and careers, until they were pushed into a legal corner and then testified.

The counterpoint to that, of course, is that they were in an incredibly difficult position during their careers, and I've often said that I am grateful at my lack of cycling ability, because it meant I never faced the choices you will read about in the statements of Hincapie and co. (in particular, Zabriskie makes mention of being "cornered" and "succumbing to the pressure). I can completely empathize with the difficulty of that choice - it is the common theme in all their testimonies, and it is the reason that I would not be too hard on those who were a silent part of this culture but who have now eventually spoken out.

So rather than condemn the (late) whistleblowers, let's celebrate even more those who DID speak BEFORE they had to. As some of those names above have already mentioned on Twitter, let's use this moment to celebrate those who were courageous and outspoken from the start. Those who had their reputations smeared by the bullying tactics of Armstrong PR because they dared to go against the grain of cycling's doping culture. Those who were slandered and marginalized for standing up to the dishonesty, and who often retired from their sport because their position in it became untenable, often at Armstrong's hand.

Let's think then of Betsy and Frankie Andreu, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Emma O'Reilly, Andy Hampsten, Scott Mercier, Darren Baker, Christophe Bassons, and all the others who spoke first, or walked away. Theirs is the example to praise, and today is a day to celebrate them.

There is a 202-page document to be read, so I'll leave it there.

Enjoy the read.

Ross

Reasoned Decision

Chicago 2012: Live splits and thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:44:00 +0000

Chicago 2012: Tsegaye Kebede breaks course record with 2:04:38

Tsegaye Kebede has won the 2012 Chicago Marathon in a course record time of 2:04:38, taking just under a minute off Moses Mosop's one-year old record. It also puts Kebede exactly one minute outside the world record, and he led home a field that saw the top five all set PBs (of course, one was a debutant, and the fourth hadn't finished a marathon until today)

Here are your top 5:

1. Tsegaye Kebede - 2:04:38
2. Feyisa Lelisa - 2:04:52
3. Tilahun Regassa - 2:05:26
4. Sammy Kitwara - 2:05:53
5. Wesley Korir - 2:06:13

So, three Ethiopians on the podium, and the first time in many years that a Kenyan has not won, let alone not even finished on the podium.

Kebede was the class act of the day, and was its aggressor. He went to the front shortly after halfway, while the pacemakers were still there, and you could see him straining to go.

Once they dropped off, Kebede had free reign and open road, and he took both, going to the front and winding the pace up. Halfway was reached in a relatively slow 62:53 (the talk was of a 62-min target), but then Kebede cranked it up. From 25km he ran a 14:29 split, and followed that up with a 14:19 split to take him to 35km.

That meant he covered those 10km in 28:48, and it was enough to destroy the field, with one exception - Lilesa. The Ethiopian was the last man standing with Kebede, and so with 5km to go, the race resembled the epic 2010 battle that saw Kebede and Wanjiru duel together in a race that resembled a track cycling race, such were the surges and counter-surges. On that occasion, the two were locked together until the last straight, and Wanjiru broke Kebede for the win.

That didn't happen today - Kebede was too strong. Lilesa showed at the front for a while, but with about 4km to go, he dropped behind Kebede. That was a temporary move, because at around 40km, he was gapped, and the tiny Ethiopian, who many consider unlucky to have missed out on the Olympic Games in London, showed his major marathon credentials, to move away and claim an ultimately comfortable victory.

Behind him, as mentioned, PBs for Lilesa, Regussa (a super fast debut, though not quite as quick as Kimetto last week in Berlin), Kitwara and Korir. The USA's Dathan Ritzenhein also ran a PB, finishing in 2:07:47 for ninth place.

Below is the race, as it happened. You'll see 5km splits, overall times and the odd comment. It also shows how the early pace was slow, perhaps because it was a little too cold (4C or 40F at the start), and that they were never ahead of Mosop's course record until 40km. Below the splits are my comments as the race unfolded.

New York remains as the final marathon of the Majors, though Frankfurt may yet have a say in the ranking lists. Join us for those in coming weeks!

Live split graph

Women's race

The women's race produced a spectacular finish, as Atsede Baysa of Ethiopia raced side by side against Rita Jeptoo of Kenya, ultimately winning by less than a second.

Baysa's winning time of 2:22:04 is not spectacular, but the finish was. Baysa has run three marathons this year, and according to the best commentator of the day, Tim Hutchings, has made a habit of running three or four marathons a year. She has won Paris twice, and had a PB of 2:22:04 coming in (she equalled it today), but her recent form didn't point to her as the likely winner.

The pace was consistent throughout - 10km in 34min projected a 2:23:28, then halfway was reached in 1:11:15 (2:22:30 projected), and so it remained pretty steady, a race of attrition as early leaders fell away. There was no decisive move, though the 10km from 30km to 40km were covered in 33:30, the fastest of the race. That was when the east Africans made their presence felt, and the Russians who had led early were relegated to outside the top 3. First among them would be Liliya Shobukhova, who was bidding for her fourth straight Chicago victory, but ultimately came up short in fourth place, 55 seconds down on the winner.

The other spectacular thing about the women's race is just how bad the commentary was from out on course. Joan Benoit Samuelson was on the route, and she first crowned Maria Konovalova of Russia as the champion after only 10km. Then by halfway, she declared the Shobukhova had the race under control. By 25km, Lucy Kabuu was your winner, and of course by 40km, it was Jeptoo. Her voice tremored with excitement as she urged the runners to "run" and "use your arms", and made the race difficult to watch with the sound on. It was as though she's never watched a marathon before, let alone won some really big ones.

As it happened...

40km

The pace may have slowed (14:40 for the last 5km), but it's still much faster than Mosop last year at the same stage, and the result is that having been behind course record pace all the way, Kebede is now well under it - his 1:58:02 at 40km puts him 31s ahead of Mosop at the same stage last year.

Kebede has also dropped Lilesa, and running from the front, is on the way to the Chicago title, in a course record, and possibly the fastest time in the world this year, though that may be just out of reach.

38km

It's down to two - Kebede and Lilesa responded to Regassa's surge, and it was enough to drop Kitwara, and so now Kebede finds himself in familiar territory - driving the pace in the final 5km of the Chicago Marathon. This time, there is no Sammy Wanjiru, but rather countryman Feyisa Lilesa.

Who decides to have a weather report at the 39km of a marathon? Unbelievable...

35km

The last 5km in 14:19, and so now it really is spectacular! The last 10km have been covered in 28:48. That's very aggressive, and it explains why the lead group has been thinned to only four.

Three Ethiopians vs one Kenyan, and that Kenyan in Sammy Kitwara. Regassa surged just after 35km, so the race is now really on.

And astonishingly, they are doing an interview with a dignitary, and then a weather report, and now a post-race interview. The mind boggles...

33km

The race has come nicely to a boil now - Kebede started it at 28km, and the damage is now becoming clearly. The group was eleven when Kebede went to the front, it thinned to 7 or 8 at 30km, and now, at about 33km, it's down to five.

And now it's four, as last year's second-placer Wesley Korir (also Boston champ this year) is just beginning to drop off. Sammy Kitwara is there, he of the sub-59 min half marathon and that's a big dangerman for the Kebede and the Ethiopians - any sub 59 min guy is always an exciting proposition in the marathon. Feyisa Lilesa is still there, and so is Tilahun Regassa. Tony Reavis thinks it is four Ethiopians, but of course Kitwara makes it one Kenyan vs three Ethiopians.

Speaking of bad commentary, Joan Benoit Samuelson is doing an appalling job on the women's race. After about 8km, she basically awarded the victory to Konovalova, then by 15km it was Shobhukova, and now, at 30km, Lucy Kabuu is your winner. You'd think she's never run (or seen) a marathon before...from the uncontrolled excitement in her voice, she's clearly never been trained as a commentator either.

30km

Tsegay Kebede, he of the epic duel of 2012 with Sammy Wanjiru, has gone to the front at about 28km, and is now either the undesignated pacemaker or is feeling so strong that he's willing to front run for the final 14km. It definitely got more aggressive - not decisively, because only two men have dropped off as a result, but the lead group (which I make ten large) is definitely being stretched and the 'casualties' will become clearer within the next ten minutes. Kebede was of course the major omission from Ethiopia's Olympic team, and perhaps has a point to prove.

By 30km, the aggression has produced the expected increase in pace, but again, nothing too spectacular - 14:29 for the last 5km, so that's very fast. But compare the 14:18 that Mutai ran when he surged at 30km in Berlin last week, and you see why there are still eight or nine in that group.

25km

The pace has slowed a little - 14:54 for the last 5km. Kebede is showing strongly at the front, but all the major players, Kenyan and Ethiopian, are still there.

Halfway

1:02:53 through the half-marathon, and so they are on schedule for a sub-2:06, and it may well get considerably faster. They are ahead of course record schedule, for what that is worth, because the big changes will come after 30km.

20km

Weather update - light winds, and a temperature of 40F (4C). The commentators and weather lady say it is ideal for marathon running. It's actually too cold, especially if you are running at 20km/h. That explains why the pace is fast without being sensational.

At 20km, it's 59:40. The pace has been remarkably consistent, with very little variation, but now it has really been ramped up - that was 14:44 for the last 5km, and it brings them to within 5 seconds of Mosop's time last year. What will determine whether they can get back to the course record is how the attacks come and whether they are too aggressive. As Geoffrey Mutai showed in Berlin, too big a surge at around 30km can become costly to overall time, even though it may win the tactical race. Should be intriguing once we get to 30km, because at this pace, there'll be ten left once the pacemakers drop off.

15km

Two mile splits from the interval were 4:45 and 4:50, so the pace remains at around 3min/km. The last 5km were covered in 14:58, so still nothing spectacular, but the pace has been remarkably constant, as the graph shows. A group of 15 in the lead.

10km

The 10km mark has just been reached - 29:58, so a small increase in speed. The last 5km were covered in 14:54, and it brings them onto a 2:06:27 pace. At this stage, they're 41s behind the time that Makau ran on route to his record in Berlin, but they are closer to Mosop's 2012 course record - the gap there is 17 seconds.

5km

The first mile was done outside 5 miles, which was very slow. It then sped up with a 4:42 second mile, but the time to 5km was slow - 15:04, which projecs a 2:07:09. I think it's safe to say that the pace will ramp up. The conditions were thought to be ideal, but it's now being reported that it may be too cold.

For comparison's sake, the image belows shows the 5km split times for the world record (left column) and the current Chicago Marathon course record (Mosop from last year).

View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.

Ross

Geoffrey Mutai: 2:04:15, misses WR

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:06:00 +0000

Geoffrey Mutai runs 2:04:15 - an intriguing, but ultimately unsuccessful WR attempt

An intriguing, but ultimately unsuccessful world record attempt has seen Geoffrey Mutai win the 2012 Berlin Marathon in 2:04:15. In one of the more amazing (or peculiar) finishes in a marathon, Mutai and Dennis Kimetto passed through the Brandenburg Gate locked together, but a sprint never came. Either both were too shattered from chasing the world record, or they'd agreed on a finishing order (they are training partners, Mutai the senior man), but the final 2.2km were incredibly slow relative to what went before and the record, which seemed on at 35km, fell away and was ultimately missed by a fairy large margin.

In the aftermath of the race, there's been a good deal of discussion about the finish. As mentioned, Mutai and Kimetto hit the Brandenburg Gate locked together, Mutai slightly ahead, as they had been for pretty much 42km. Over the final 200m, that did not change, and there seemed to be no attempt to change that from Kimetto, and no attempt from Mutai to seal the win with any kind of sprint. A few commentators have remarked at their surprise at the lack of a sprint, and I must confess it was an anti-climactic finish for a head-to-head race, leading me to side with those saying it was "pre-planned".

If that is the case, it would continue a theme started in the London Olympic Games where athletes were getting into trouble as much for NOT wanting to win as for cheating in order to win. We often talk about doping undermining our chance to watch a "genuine race", and one can argue that this is the same, and a shame for the integrity of the concept of a 'race'. Then again, these athletes are professionals, and given the "hierarchy" that would see Mutai above Kimetto as training partners, perhaps they are entitled to 'share the pie' as they see fit. Feel free to voice your thoughts in the discussion below. Here are some thoughts from our friends at Letsrun.com

Patrick Makau's world record therefore survived it's first really big challenge, and it illustrates once again just how challenging the world record is, because Mutai had it in his sights, and perhaps hindsight will show that a small error in pacing after 30km, when he surged aggressively for a 14:18 five-kilometer split, cost him over the final 5km, where the pace dropped significantly.

The race analysis

The story is best told by the graph below, which is full of detail, but hopefully tells of how Mutai controlled the race from the start, and managed to wind the pace up progressively so that each five kilometer segment was faster than the one before. Until the final 5km segment, that is, where you can see the "cost" of the surge as the pace dropped.

Up to that point, it was a remarkable illustration of negative pacing, and is the kind of thing you might occasionally see in a tactical track race, let alone a world record lasting over two hours.

Briefly, the graph compares Mutai's 2012 race to that of Patrick Makau, the man who set the record one year ago. It shows, from top to bottom:

The five kilometer segments for both athletes, with Makau's in red and Mutai's in blue
The difference between the five-kilometer splits in purple. Positive means Mutai was slower, negative means he was faster than Makau for the comparable split from 2011
Projected marathon time for Mutai in the white blocks
The blue line and red line show the race splits for Mutai and Makau respectively. The text on the graphs shows the cumulative time difference between the two men as Mutai's race unfolded

So, what are the key points?

Firstly, the AVERAGE pace needed to run the world record is 2:55.8. That translates to a 14:39/5km. Notice how Mutai did not hit that pace until the second half of the race. In fact, he was actually quite a lot slower than the overall average, with his splits for the first 10km projecting a time outside 2:05. So the first half was conservative - 62:12.

Interestingly, I've since received some feedback that the pace car that drives the route with the elite athletes displaying the kilometer splits was responsible for this conservative start, because it "froze" with a kilometer time of 2:50 within the first few kilometers of the race. Mutai, assuming he was basing his pace on that information, would have consciously held back for fear of maintaining that kind of pace, and the consequence of that is that he went through the half about 35 seconds slower than had been requested.

Once Mutai realized that the pace was too slow (he needed a 61:25 second half), he pressed on, and the second began in a sensationally aggressive fashion, and was fast, at least until the end. His second half ended up being 62:05, so on paper, an even race, but of course it's skewed by the very fast surge and the very slow finish
Speaking of the finish, at 35km, the world record was definitely on. Makau's comparable time may have been 14 seconds faster, but Makau finished fairly slowly last year too - 14:59 for the last 5km. Had Mutai maintained even a 14:40 pace from 35km onwards, the record was his. However, he slowed significantly. The final 2.2km were run at 3:09/km. The result was that a virtual gap of 8 seconds at 40km became 36 seconds by the finish line. Mutai was absolutely spent over the final 2.2km, and this is probably the outcome of the 14:18 surge.
Until the final 7km, the slope of that line is just incredible - yes, the start was conservative, but it was ramped up as the race developed, culminating with Mutai's big surge between 30 and 35km, when the pace-setters dropped out. There, a 2:43 and a 2:52 kilometer put him right back in the frame for that record. It's easy to see in hindsight, but that was too fast - a slightly more conservative pace would still have kept that line heading in the right direction, and Mutai MAY have had more in the tank from 35 to 40km, and certainly a sub-2:04 would have been achieved. These things are never precise, of course, but given how beautifully controlled the pace was, that surge was just too big. And to emphasize the precision, we're talking 2 to 3 seconds per kilometer here! Those are the margins.
Look at the cumulative time gaps between Mutai and Makau - the conservative start for Mutai meant that from the gun, Makau was "ahead" in their virtual race. It was 22 seconds after 5km, and the gap got larger and larger, so that by 20km, Makau would have been about 200m ahead, with a margin of 33 seconds. But Mutai's race, as mentioned above, was based on getting quicker and quicker, and so he began to erode that margin. 21 seconds at 25km, then it got larger again - that's because Makau used the 25-30km segment last year to surge and break Gebsrselassie's challenge. The virtual gap grew to 34 seconds at 30km, but Mutai had his own surge still to use. That happened from 30km to 35km, and suddenly, the record was back on because the difference was now down to only 14 seconds. With 2.2km to go, Mutai had Makau in "his virtual sights". But then, as pointed out above, Mutai blew and the record fell away.

Ultimately, Mutai's performance today showed just how difficult it will be to get this record. There is still a margin for "error" in terms of pacing, but it's now tiny. Today, the start was probably a touch slow, but the big difference came after 35km, when the pace told. Similarly, for Makau last year, his big surge probably meant that the final time was not quite optimal - there is a margin for error. But in the heat of a marathon, it's small enough that surges and decisions that are slightly fast are costly. This is why it's so premature to talk about a sub-2 hour marathon, or even a sub-2:02. Those performances require perfection - the small margin of error for a 2:03 is almost non-existent for a 2:02. Weather-wise, it has to be perfect (the sunshine may have added time to Mutai's performance today, for example, just slightly warm by the finish), pace-setting must be perfect, the athlete probably requires some 'company', and of course their condition must be absolutely perfect on the day.

Mutai, and Berlin, were not quite 100% today. The result is a PB (official course, that is - Mutai has that 2:03:02), and Mutai has now won three major marathons (Boston, New York and Berlin), but the world record waits for another day.

Ross

P.S. Will try to get thoughts on the women's race up later. I missed the race live because of another commitment (sorry for the lack of live splits - work got in the way!), so have been scrambling to get this short analysis done. More later, work permitting!

Pistorius vs Oliveira and technology. 3 quick thoughts on Round 4

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:46:00 +0000

Pistorius vs Oliveira and Technology. Three quick thoughts on Round 4

Tonight sees the final evening of Paralympic action and it will be highlighted by the fourth clash between Oscar Pistorius and Alan Oliveira. Oliveira stunned the world when he beat Pistorius in the 200m final last weekend, igniting a debate about the length of his carbon fiber blades.

Ironically, it was Pistorius who supplied the kerosene and the match to start the 'technology bonfire', which has not relented. Pistorius has, for the last five years, defended his prosthetics and claimed that the technology does not provide any relative advantage. A first defeat over 200m in nine years, and his first interview called out the technology used by a rival, and that has enormous implications for how we perceive the carbon fiber prosthetic technology in the sport for ALL its users.

Pistorius was both wrong and misguided in his explanations and reasoning for his protest. Wrong, because he claimed that he couldn't compete with Alan's strides, when in fact, it was Alan's stride rate that was the difference (Pistorius had longer strides, by about 8%, it turns out). If he loses the 400m final tonight, it will be for the same reason, so look for the stride rate differences. Misguided, because the IPC have a set of rules or formulas in place that govern the length of athlete's blades and Oliveira was comfortably beneath these. The IPC guidelines allow Oliveira to run up to 1.854m, and he competed at 1.81m. For Pistorius, incidentally, the IPC allows 1.93m and he races at 1.84m. More on this later.

In the larger scheme of things, however, what Pistorius did achieve was to draw attention to the fact that rule changes may be needed, and I think the implications of that were lost on him somewhat. I explained more of this in my post at the time. I'm not sure what rule change they can make, without discriminating against one athlete but not another. Ironically enough, Pistorius' CAS appeal was against rules that he felt discriminated against one athlete, and now he's effectively asking for a rule change that would in all likelihood allow him to benefit at other's expense.

Every double amputee, at some stage, has the opportunity to "optimize" the technology and specifications of their carbon fiber blades. For Pistorius, this came in 2007/2008, when he was flying to Iceland to try prototypes with Ossur, and doing all kinds of testing before taking his case to CAS for the right to compete against able-bodied athletes. Back then, he competed at a height 184 cm when the IPC rules would allow 193 cm, and he now is obliged to stay at that height after the CAS decision. What we should be asking is why he was at this shorter height in the first place? He had 9 cm to play with back then, but all the testing and engineering support from Ossur saw him embark on his campaign at 184 cm. For Oliveira, no such CAS-ruling exists, though it might in the future, but he is the sport's next uncomfortable problem.

The scientific evidence suggests that length is one of a few reasons why the blades may provide a relative advantage. Oliveira's emergence on the 'blade runner' scene means that we now have two athletes with access to the technology and the skill to use it, and suddenly we don't know which is the better athlete, because the technology confounds it. Read that previous sentence once more, except replace "Oliveira" with "Pistorius" and you see the problem with the cross-over of amputees into able-bodied events.

Looking ahead to the 400m final. Quick thoughts

In any event, let's leave the big picture behind and look ahead to tonight's clash in the 400m final.

Before their 100m final (Pistorius was 4th and Oliveira 7th), the cameras focused in on the prosthetic limbs of each athlete, further showing that for all the exploits of the athletes in London 2012, the 'stars' of this particular show have become the devices they run on.

In their 400m semi-finals, both shut it down with about 100m to run, so their qualifying times don't tell the true picture. I think the better "preview" for the race is that they went through 200m in identical times, around 23 seconds, and so except them to be level with 100m to run tonight. It's sure to be a great race, determined largely by whether Oliveira, just 20, has the strength over the distance compared to Pistorius.

Or will it? Perhaps the technology will have the greater impact. Here are three things to keep in mind when this debate kicks off again, as it inevitably will.

1. Don't look purely at the length of the prosthetic limbs

Much has been made of the fact that Oliveira runs on blades that are 47cm long, while Pistorius' are 41cm long. Failing to think this through, people claim "Ah, that's proof, the Brazilian has an advantage". The commentator on the world feed, who is absolutely dreadful for many reasons, the least of which is ignorance, points this out all the time.

The truth is more complex. Imagine for a moment two men, both double amputees, identical in every respect, except for WHERE their amputation is. One is amputated just above the ankle, the other just below the knee. That means a ± 15 cm difference in their height WITHOUT prosthetic limbs.

If you now provided blades that are the SAME length to both these men, you'd be putting one on stilts (the above-ankle amputee), the other on 'stubs' (the above knee). The higher up the amputation, the longer the blade has to be to create "equality". This is why, when you compare Pistorius to Oliveira, you cannot simply look at the carbon fiber blades. Pistorius' amputation is low down, whereas Oliveira's is higher up - you can see this in all photos, just by observing the socket that the carbon fiber blade is attached to.

Now consider two differently sized men. Here, you have an even more complex situation, because even if the amputation is in the same place, they may require different blades, because one of them is Usain Bolt (tall with long limbs), the other is Tyson Gay, shorter.

The point is, you cannot standardize the length of the blades because a) you have to allow for where amputation is, and b) you'd be disadvantaging taller runners with relatively shorter blades, and vice-versa.

So when the camera zooms in on Pistorius and Oliveira either before after this final, don't just look at the blades, because it's only a small piece of the story.

2. There are not two different sets of rules for Pistorius and the others

In the aftermath of Pistorius' defeat and protest, a number of people claimed that Pistorius had a point because there are two different sets of rules, that the IPC has one set of guidelines whereas Pistorius is bound by the IAAF to run on his "shorter" blades at a height of 1.84m.

This is untrue. Firstly, in IPC-sanctioned events, Pistorius can go up to 1.93m. This was quite clear after the IPC leaked a document that shows the maximum allowable heights for all the double amputees. That is shown below.

So, Pistorius could, if he wished, lengthen his blades for IPC races, just not IOC or IAAF events. Granted, that may be very difficult to do, making the change from shorter to taller, so you can appreciate that he wouldn't do it. Then again, Oliveira managed, within a few weeks, to get faster on slightly longer blades, so it's not inconceivable.

Secondly, however, we have to go back to 2008 again - the IAAF did not have guidelines in place for the length of blades, because there was no precedent. So, at the time when Pistorius gave them this question, they borrowed the IPC formulas. The result is that the IAAF would have the same formula and height restrictions as the IPC, and which you can see above.

The exception (for IAAF events only) is Pistorius, because of the CAS-ruling that "locks" him in at 1.84m, as I explained previously. So it's not a question of different rules, but rather that the scrutiny has provided a selection of sorts that means Pistorius cannot now add length.

However, even this is not the most important point to recognize. That is, I think there are more pertinent questions that need to be asked. For example:

Oliveira has admitted that a few weeks ago, he increased the length of his blades, taking his racing height from 1.77m to 1.81m. That has made a significant difference on his performance. The question is, having gone up 4cm, why not go up another 4cm to his limit? If height was the be-all and end-all decisive factor, he'd have gone as long as he could within the rules.
Similarly, Blake Leeper and David Behre are not competing at their maximum allowable heights either
Third, and very importantly, going back to 2008, Pistorius had 1.93m as his limit, but was already at 1.84m. As a result, he's now obliged to race at that height by virtue of the CAS-ruling that prevents him from deviating from what was tested and approved. However, we should be going further back, as I said above, and asking why he was competing so "short" in the first place? All the investment by Ossur into Pistorius' campaign, and they "left out" 9cm? More likely, they tried and found that 1.84m was the optimal length

I don't know the answer to these questions with certainty, but I can hazard an opinion, and it's that adding height does not mean a faster overall performance. It may mean a higher top speed and better finish, but there is a compromise in terms of the effect of longer blades on the start and the bend. Watch Oliveira's 100m race to see this. Part of it is that his amputation is higher up, and part is due to 6cm of additional blade length. Blake Leeper has the same issue because he is also amputated higher up. My point is that the athletes settle on a racing height that is lower than the allowable limit for a reason - best performance. Claiming that height is the crucial factor is to overlook all the other factors that affect performance.

What we are seeing in the Paralympic double amputee events is a race where athletes have tested their equipment, found the optimal specifications for OVERALL time, factoring in how much is lost at the start and gained on the straight, and now compete against one another. And that's great, it should be celebrated and enjoyed for what it is. Oliveira, for whatever reason, may be better able to manage or control longer blades, still within the IPC limits. Perhaps in the future, another athlete will be even better.

Just a quick word on those limits shown above. They are based on measurements of other limb segments in able-bodied athletes, and then used to calculate what the person's maximum height can be before they become "disproportionately long-legged". That number - the 1.93 or 1.854m - is not the average, however, because you will find that some people have longer legs relative to arms. So the IPC must work with a range, perhaps average ± 2SD. Then they add 3.5% to allow for athletes running on their toes. Interestingly enough, if they took this 3.5% off, Pistorius' limit would drop to 186.4 cm and Oliveira would drop to 179.1 cm. Presumably, this is what Pistorius considers fair and would accept as a rule change.

3. Oliveira has allowed us to see the effect of technology

Final point - the only reason this debate is happening is because Oliveira has so publicly allowed us to see how the technology affects performance. Here is an athlete who is clearly good - even if he is forced back to 179 cm with the removal of the 3.5% rule, for example, he'd be right up there in a Paralympic final, and this at the age of 20. However, he's gone from good to great as a result of a technological improvement.

I'd argue that there is nothing wrong with this. You could, playing devil's advocate, argue that Oliveira was running too short in the first place, back when he was at 1.77m, and now he's gone up to where he should be. Or, continuing along the same lines, you could say that his unique skill is his ability to use those blades better than others, allowing him to use longer blades.

However, the difference between Oliveira and the others is not that he can do this "Formula-1 like" engineering of performance - they all can. Rather, it's that he did it at a time and in a place where it is so clear for all to see. It was the visible change that brought it to our attention. Reps for the companies that make the blades regularly help athletes with performance testing, trying out new blades, new materials, lighter mass, thinner blades, different ways to attach the blade to the stump, and of course, length. They do this in the off-season, and the effects are not as obvious as they were for Oliveira, but they are there.

It's part of the sport, and so within guidelines set up by the IPC, it should not even be questioned provided it happens in Paralympic events only. If anything, it should be encouraged and celebrated as a symptom of an advancing, improving sport. In that regard, it's no different to cycling enforcing rules about bicycle specifications, or Formula-1 rules regarding car design, but still driving innovation in the search for a competitive advantage. We can question those guidelines, but that's only because one person (and the obliging national federation in SASCOC) feels they unfairly prevent him from winning.

And it is only 2012. By 2016, there may well be four or five MORE double-amputees, inspired by Pistorius and Oliveira, who are even faster. In fact, it is not inconceivable that the winning time in the men's 400m T44 final will be faster than the able-bodied winning time by 2016. It all depends on the technology ruling.

History will judge the athletic ability of both Oliveira and Pistorius, because in future, with the continued growth of the Paralympic movement, times will drop, possibly significantly if the caliber of athletes can increase. So far, the assumption for both is that they are genuine 21s or 46s 400m athletes. If that's true, no problem. If it is not, then some time in the future, a genuine 45s 400m runner will have the same technology and skill to use it, and then it will become obvious. Time will tell.

Until then, we watch these races wondering if we're seeing the best runner, the most skillful practitioner, the best engineer or the wealthiest athlete win. And yes, that's sport (think sailing, cycling), but it's never been a dominant characteristic of running. The whole debate brings attention to the cross-over from paralympic to able-bodied events, and highlights just how complex it makes the sport. Celebrate them for their differences, but recognize that they're different.

Ross

Oscar Pistorius: Counting strides (as requested) and more thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:57:00 +0000

Oscar Pistorius beaten, and then invites debate on someone else's technology

Talk about irony. Within minutes of being upset by Brazil's Alan Oliveira in the final of the men's T44 200m, Oscar Pistorius claimed in this interview that he's "not running a fair race here". The crux of his argument, which he also stated yesterday before even losing this final, is that his rivals are artificially extending the length of their legs, and he pointed out in this interview that "it's very clear that the guys have got very long strides".

To add to that case, he is quoted after the final as saying the following: "I can't compete with Alan's stride length".

Now, let me start upfront by saying that there is a lot more to running that stride length. If all it took was big strides, then the running world would be dominated by the tallest men, and shorter runners like Tyson Gay would stand no chance. What matters is not just stride length, or height, but rather the length of the leg relative to height, and the ground contact length, which is a function of the leg length (partly). Plus there is force applied to the ground, leg turnover rates and all those things, but let's take one component at a time here!

Read more. . .

As requested - a cursory look at the strides

So, since Oscar Pistorius has made it a point to emphasize how long his rivals' strides are (it's "very clear that they have got very long strides", he said), and to say that he "can't compete with Alan's (Oliveira - the Brazilian who beat him) stride length", I watched the race over and did the obvious thing - I counted the strides.

It turns out that Pistorius took 92 steps during the race (2.2m per stride), and Oliveira took 98 steps to win gold (2.0m per stride). To break it down further:

In the first 100m, Pistrorius took 49 steps (2.0m per stride), with 43 steps in the straight (2.3m per stride).

Oliveira, on the other hand, took SHORTER strides - 52 in the first 100m (1.92m each) and 46 in the second 100m (2.2m each).

So, a simple count shows that Pistorius has longer strides than Alan, and they are consistently longer - on the bend, and in the straight, for those who are wondering. It's Oliveira who "can't compete with Oscar's stride length". His faster speed, then, is the result of faster leg movement, because speed, as you will appreciate, is the result of stride length and stride rate.

And here again, let me repeat, there is much more to the debate that simply the stride length, as I'll get to shortly. But the point there is that once again, you have this misinformation from Pistorius, and the media are too lazy to interrogate it further, they just report and allow the uninformed debate to go on. Already on Twitter I got numerous responses saying "Look how long Oliveira's stride is"! And it's not - it's shorter than Pistorius', by some margin!

It's not (just) about the stride length. And welcome to the slippery slope

Right, so having dealt with that over simplification, let's talk briefly about the issue here. Is it possible that the Brazilian has increased his stride length as a result of increasing the length of his blades? Of course it is. This is part of the problem with the prosthetic limbs, and there's no way to know this unless you go back to the IPC World Championships in 2011 and measure the height of the athlete and compare it to today.

You could count Oliveira's strides and find that his stride length has increased, but now you have another problem - you can't confidently attribute any increase to the leg length. It may be that he has gotten stronger, and is covering more ground per stride as a result. If that were true, then his stride length relative to his height would be much greater, with no explanation other than many hours of good training (This is how Pistorius explained his own performance improvements, incidentally)

So, for Oliveira, his improved performance may be due to the blade length, it may be due to his technical skill, it may be due to his improved strength, it may be due to some weight loss. You see the slippery slope here? Only if his height was measured and is continuously measured can one know with certainty this answer.

But even then, an athlete may discover that they are a few inches shorter than the upper limit imposed by some rule based on ratios, and they can, quite legally, add to their blades. What is wrong with that? I'd say nothing - they are simply correcting and then optimizing what nature did not provide, aren't they? Their mistake was making their prosthetics too short the first time, and they should be allowed to add height within reason. Again, welcome to the slippery slope of technology in sport.

So then your response may be to say "Surely there is an ideal leg length for someone's height?". The answer is that there IS a range, but in elite athletes, the limits have to be wide because ranges that you'd find in the normal population don't apply. There is pretty substantial evidence, for example, to show that elite runners (Kenyan and West African runners in particular) have disproportionately long legs relative to height, and so this may be a factor that predicts running success. I'd bet that if you look at the likes of Usain Bolt, Kirani James and Asbel Kiprop, you'll find that they have longer than normal legs for their height.

The double problem in a double amputee is that you don't have a height - without prosthetic limbs, there's no reference point against which to "anchor" leg length. So then, you can start using arm length and say that the "normal" leg length is a certain factor of the arm length. But again, that doesn't work because the ranges are large enough that you can "artificially" get longer legs without violating the upper limit of what is found normally. Again, I'd be willing to bet that in the elite athletic population, you'll find many of the best runners are guys with disproportionately long legs relative to arms. It's worth checking all the athletes, of course, but the end result of this (and I'm going to get this data for you - it's just that it's 12.44am here in SA) is that the kind of accusation Pistorius is making is pretty baseless. Not to mention the timing, which is another matter.

As for the fast finish, I'd love to see the splits from the race, measured accurately. Doing it off the TV set is weak, and it gives splits of 11.1s and 10.4s for Pistorius, and 11.5s and 10.0s for Oliveira. That's fairly meaningless because you'll see many 200m races with a 0.6s swing. It's unusual, certainly, for a leader to be reeled in that strongly, but it's the kind of finish that has carried Pistorius to a few gold medals in his time - I remember a Commonwealth 100m race where he gave up about 5m (0.5s at that speed) in a 100m race and still won. Today was no different, so the claim that you can't win from behind is equally misguided.

The bottom line is that whatever the rules of prosthetic limbs, if Oliveira is within them (and we have good reason to think that he is, given his compliance with the IPC and even Pistorius' accusation is not that he is cheating, but that the rules are wrong), it just re-introduces the same debate - how do we know, with 100% certainty, that we are not seeing the result of some technological battle?

The answer is that we can't. The leg length issue is an 'advantage' that Pistorius has always had, and we've been watching him compete for years not knowing if he's done the exact same thing as he is now accusing Oliveira of. Remember, the leg:arm ratio is a flawed way to establish these boundaries for elite athletes.

And it does beg the question - why does Pistorius not just push his length up to the limit if the rules allow it? If Pistorius is below whatever limit exists for leg length, then he should just increase his length and run a 44s 400m in 2013. Or, if Pistorius is already there (which I strongly suspect, given the R&D backing he has), then all we've seen tonight is that Oliveira has corrected his length and managed to create an equal race with Pistorius.

The bigger issue is that of technology. The advantage for Oliveira tonight was NOT his stride length, despite Pistorius' claims. The advantage was stride rate. And remember, this is the factor that Peter Weyand concluded gave Oscar Pistorius an enormous advantage over able-bodied runners who simply cannot move their limbs at the same rate, because Pistorius was able to achieve leg repositioning times that no able-bodied human ever could. That advantage is still in play, except now we have another runner who is benefitting from it, and possibly exploiting it even better than Pistorius.

Pistorius doesn't enjoy that compay. I look forward to the emergence of even more of these runners, and perhaps one day, sooner rather than later, we'll be seeing the first even sub-21s 200m time by a double amputee, and then it's matter of time before we see a sub-45s 400m time, and so on. Are we just seeing the emergence of the next generation of athlete, equally capable of using the technology, but with greater athletic potential than Pistorius? Have the floodgates opened? I'd be willing to say that there is already an athlete who has begun training who will beat both Oliveira and Pistorius by some margin and force these same questions, all over again.

If you're wondering tonight about whether Pistorius has a valid argument, then welcome to the slippery slope that is the introduction of technology with no clear answers to the sport. We've been here for eight years.

Feel free to discuss, I'll get more thoughts on it tomorrow.

Ross

The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:22:00 +0000

The Lance Armstrong fallout - questions, denials and doping reactions

Friday last week saw Lance Armstrong release a statement that effectively ended his fight against the USADA doping charges, and accept the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. It was a significant day for the sport, if only because it forces a look back to the era of cycling that was so tainted by drugs that between 1996 and 2006, the sport has not had a single champion untainted by doping. The timeline reads: Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, and here we sit, seven years later with a big asterisk next to the Tour!

The reaction to the USADA case, and Armstrong's statement, has however produced huge debate. I've refrained from comment here, but have been discussing it at length over on Facebook and Twitter for those interested in the day-to-day thoughts that come up.

But it's time to address a few of the common questions and positions, hence this post.

Read more. . .

The polarized debate

The only thing one can say with certainty about Armstrong's decision is that he felt that he had no chance of winning an arbitration proceeding before the USADA. That is unquestionably true. The split happens because you can explain this in one of two ways. The first is that he felt he had no chance of winning because the court is rigged, the verdict already decided, and the process unconstitutional. A witch-hunt. This is of course what he has said, through his statement, and the PR campaign that was launched when the USADA case was first announced. In fact, it's the same message he has been throwing out for years, as Frankie Andreu pointed out with his reaction, saying it sounded like a "broken record".

The second explanation is that he had no chance of winning because the evidence that USADA had gathered was so convincing, so compelling that he could not explain it away. There would be no brazen denial in the face of perhaps a dozen team-mates all alleging the same thing, plus the testimony of experts and officials who explained how he'd done it. The blood values, possibly financial records, who knows what other evidence they had? Circumstantial perhaps, but there was a mountain of it. And make no mistake, Armstrong would have known what that evidence was - not specifically perhaps, but he'd know if the evidence existed, and would assume that those witnesses for USADA would have some pretty damning accounts, possibly backed with proof.

Your choice between those two options is largely a function of what you want to believe, or what you believed before the statement was even released. If you want to believe the Lance Armstrong story, you're going for the former - he was just tired.

Let me state, upfront, that I would opt for the second one, that Lance Armstrong doped, and that his decision not to fight the charges is a tactical decision aimed at trying to keep the lid on that evidence, because he knows it's not worth allowing into the public. For about 13 years, Lance Armstrong has fought the process, and now, for the first time, he faced evidence, and chose not to fight. I interpret his decision not to fight as an admission that he can't, not that he shouldn't, and I don't buy the unconstitutional criticism that he has so cleverly sewn into the discussion (as evidenced by how many are outraged at the USADA case).

The problem is, if you choose to believe Armstrong, that it's a witch-hunt, then you are also a conspiracy theorist, because the only way you can explain all the witnesses who are willing to testify is to say that they are part of a massive conspiracy against him. One that spans the Atlantic Ocean, includes former team-mates, journalists, doctors, administrators, soigneurs, strangers and mechanics. A few people are "easy" to dismiss - Landis and Hamilton are not credible, that's easy. But if USADA had ten more lined up, it becomes more and more difficult to dismiss.

The implication of Armstrong's decision not to fight the charges is that it denies a formal ruling on the matter, and also delays the emergence of the evidence. This was expressed by David Walsh as disappointment, and it was best captured in this excellent piece by Anna Zimmerman, who, by the way, also provided the best coverage of the legal wrangling prior the Armstrong's statement. She explains how the USADA cases was within its mandate, constitutional and not the 'witch-hunt' that people seem so willing to call it (with more than a nudge from clever PR people for Armstrong).

Two other pieces well worth reading on that particular question are Joe Lindsey's insights here, and this piece on FraudBytes, which I think address the question adequately. The Joe Lindsey piece on Boulder Report is excellent because it explains how the evidence may still emerge, and why it matters.

Oh and if you have a lot of time, then this is a must-read - it's a four-part rebuttal of the argument that the USADA case is so unconstitutional by someone called "Nerdlinger". Even if you just read Parts I to IV, it will take you through every claim and PR strategy that has been employed. Quite brilliant.

Let me now turn my attention to four of the common questions and retorts that seem to have arisen:

1. "Lance passed 500 tests. He must be innocent"

This is straight from the press release, because it's been Armstrong's most used retort to the doping question. Two things:

First, there is no way he was tested 500 times. DimSpace has compiled a record of all the possible tests Armstrong may have been subjected to, with over-estimates, and it comes to 236. So there's more than a little hype in that number that started at 400, then hit 500, and just like that fish your uncle caught on his summer vacation in 1997 grew in size with every story-telling, ended up around the 600 mark.

Nevertheless, 236 is an impressive number to pass, so how is it possible? Well, here's a list of names - Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Dwain Chambers, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Valverde. That's just six names of athletes who also doped for very long periods without failing a test. Some were caught eventually (Chambers & Montgomery) because a test was developed for a drug called THG based on a tip-off. It then emerged that Chambers had doped for years, with everything, avoiding detection. Ullrich went down because of good old-fashioned investigative work that discovered blood bags in a clinic. Marion Jones was never caught. The reality is that testing is limited, especially when it happens in-competition. That's why people say that if you fail a drug test in competition, you have failed an IQ test - it's so simple to manipulate the timing and dosage of your drug use so that you are not tested when you compete.

And remember, the effect of doping lasts long after the drug is gone. You can take EPO, get the benefit, and compete without the drug in the system. Micro-dosing allows you to take the drug very close to the event without it being detectable. In fact, you can dope 12 hours from your race, and as long as you get dosage right, you'll pass doping controls. The authorities have to be very lucky to test you while you have the drug in your body.

The point is, passing the drug controls is not really all that difficult.

Another point about Armstrong is that his Tour victories spanned a period where the two most common doping methods were not detectable. First, EPO was widely used without being detectable. Once a test was developed for EPO, the practice changed, almost overnight, to blood doping, which was also very difficult to detect. It was only with the introduction of the biological passport that it became possible, because they were looking for the effect of the drug rather than the drug itself. Armstrong did not compete under that kind of scrutiny - his era was one where doping control was almost 'quaint' by comparison.

It is no co-incidence that upon his return in 2009, when the biological passport was being used, his values were immediately picked up as borderline suspicious (by Morkeberg, if you fancy a google search). And, part of the USADA case is Armstrong's blood values which they say are indicative of doping - we are yet to see that evidence. But again, this is a sign of a changing anti-doping landscape, that now catches what 12 years ago was impossible to detect.

So, we should not be too surprised at the fact that he never failed a doping test. One that stuck, anyway - there is the pesky matter of that cortisone positive, and that inconvenient failed EPO test when research testing discovered that his samples were positive from the 1999 Tour (edit: I initially said 2001 - the 2001 samples were those alleged by Landis to have been covered up at the Tour of Switzerland. It was on 1999 that the research testing was done - thanks to those who picked up my mix-up). Here again, Armstrong escaped because doping control had not made the step up to where it is today - today, samples are kept for long periods so that any undetectable drugs can be detected in the future, when the test becomes available. Had this been the case for the Armstrong era, in 2001 specifically, this claim of "never failed a test" would never have existed. As it is, it's false because of those test failures, but the absence of a B-sample meant it did not stick.

And then there is also the allegation of bribes paid to cover up positive tests - if USADA has evidence in the form of testimony that can be backed up with records or documentation, then this more than answers the "500 test" myth - why beat the tests when you can pay to make them disappear?

Or why worry about beating them when you know when they're coming? The latest report suggests that sources within the French lab (AFLD) say that Armstrong was routinely informed of when the tests would happen, allowing him ample time to manipulate the sample. The "surprise" element of out-of-competition testing is 90% of their effectiveness, and so if this is the case, then you again get a clearer picture of why those 236 tests failed to discover anything.

Here again, the evidence and testimony will either be believed or dismissed as hearsay. Either way, the "never failed a test in 500" defense is irrelevant because it is a) exaggerated, b) shown up as meaningless by the anti-doping climate of the Armstrong era, c) possibly false anyway.

2. "This is futile. What is the point of doping controls if they don't catch anyone anyway?"

An extension of the above is the realization that Armstrong was tested many times without failing the convenient test that we have created as a requirement for a doping positive. People take that to mean that anti-doping is useless and irrelevant.

Not so, for a few reasons. First, as I explain above, the anti-doping landscape has evolved, and this is a paradigm shift people need to make. There was a time that we were looking for "smoking guns". That is, to convict an athlete of doping, we needed a blood or urine sample with the drug in it. It's the equivalent of needing to catch a thief on camera with his hand in the bank vault or cash register.

That was naive. Those days are long gone. The sophistication of doping has forced a rethink, and there has been a paradigm change which many people are sadly unaware of. The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced. Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught.

The advent of out-of-competition testing forced performances to drop almost overnight, and was the first illustration that doping control exists to deter doping as much as it does to catch it. Take note of that - doping control is there not only to catch dopers, but to deter them from doping in the first place.

If that is working, then you'll see two things. Fewer people will dope ("We can't get away with it"). And, those who do dope will dope less, with smaller doses ("We can still get away with it, but we have to be extra careful"). That is what brings the performance level down, and hopefully ensures that everyone has a realistic shot of competing without doping. I'd go so far as to say that the best we can hope for is that doping control is so tight and difficult to avoid, that doping is squeezed to the point where it makes no significant impact on performance. Even though it happens, it's ineffective. That would be good enough, in my opinion.

You see this most strikingly in women's athletics - prior to 1987, there were no out-of-competition tests. Once introduced, performances dropped instantly, and the current record books are dominated by those 1980s performances. The poor female sprinters and power athletes of the current era cannot get close to their event world records, and that's thanks to better anti-doping control today.

But this doesn't happen overnight. And in cycling, the 90s and 2000s were affected by a generation of "pharmacological fraud", because the deterrent value was not high enough. Cyclists doped with EPO and blood doping because they could do so with relative impunity - it wasn't totally unpoliced, but it was certainly not effective. As I explained above, the tests either did not exist, or were not frequent or powerful enough to catch dopers.

Then came the passport, and the paradigm shift that said "we will look for the effect of the drug, and not its presence". Now, all of a sudden, it became feasible to catch athletes without finding a banned substance in their body. Lance Armstrong's Tour wins did not have this obstacle to overcome - nobody did until 2007, and that's when the deterrent qualities of anti-doping became clear, as I explained in this post - when the EPO test was introduced, it "forced" a shift in behavior that saw blood doping take over as the method of choice. Then the biological passport squeezed doping down to the point that the Tour slowed down. It doesn't eradicate doping, but it changes the behavior, and that's what it must do.

This is so valuable because ultimately, the point of doping control is to protect those who do not wish to dope. Those individuals, like Christophe Bassons, who wish to compete without doping, are the purpose of doping control, and so we should not look at catching people as much as deterring them. Catching cheats is only part of it.

So to those who are saying that this current USADA-Armstrong case indicates the futility of the sport, I would ask that they recognize the bigger picture, and the history of doping control. We cannot simply give up because we are not yet 100% perfect. The biological passport is not perfect, and anyone who claims it is wrong. But it's a step by step process, that has to catch up on years of cheating. There was a time where the dopers were so far ahead that it was a mismatch. The cynics may say it still is, but improved sophistication has narrowed the gap, and that has to keep the momentum going.

The short summary in response to that question is this: "Let's legalize doping, make it a free for all, and see what happens". I don't want that, I don't know that many do, and so therefore, doping control has a crucial place as a deterrent, to protect the rights of those who do not wish to dope.

3. "If Lance doped, it doesn't matter - everyone else was doping too, so it was a level playing field"

This is another common defence, and it leads to all kinds of bizarre justifications of Armstrong's success and why he should be left alone. It's also frustratingly wrong, for three reasons.

First, remember that doping was illegal, which means that even though everyone may have been doing it, they were doing it with the pressure of a legal system on them. That means that some will have been brazen enough to try more than others. You are not seeing a level playing field because not every athlete is willing to risk as much given that there are penalties for cheating. And while the testing may have been grossly inadequate, as I explained above, it still forced athletes to take risks and spend more money to get away with doping. Therefore, the results of the race were strongly influenced by who was most successful at doing the illegal thing, who wanted to take the most risk, and who had the best systems to help them get away with the illegal action. That in turn is a function of money and power, but nowhere in this does being the best cyclist factor in. And yes, the playing field is never even, but when money, power and an appetite for illegal behavior affect results more than physiology and training, there's a problem.

Secondly, there is no doubt at all that drugs affect people differently. You and I may take two aspirin for a headache. Mine gets worse, you fall asleep 30 minutes later. Individual differences mean that you cannot assume, even if everyone dopes the same (which they don't - see previous point), that the race is equal.

And third, it's irrelevant anyway. I'm baffled by this pseudo-justification of Armstrong's doping because other guys were doping too. They should be viewed as parallel cases, that have cross-threads linking them (they're all in the same race, for example), but how does Ullrich's doping make Armstrong's or Basso's any less wrong? Surely the moral compass that is the foundation of all sport requires that everyone obey the rules that they have accepted in the first place?

If every single investment banker on Wall Street was dishonest and committing fraud, does that mean that none are in the wrong? Are Madoff and Stanford less guilty because fraud is widespread? If a student cheats on an exam to get into University, is that condoned as long as he's not the only one cheating?

Related to this is the idea that Armstrong's titles should be left alone because those who he beat have also been convicted of doping. As this graphic illustrates, the list of dopers in the Top 10 of the Tour de France is long, and if Armstrong is not the champion, who is? Ullrich, Zulle, Basso, Vinokourov, Rumsas are names on the podium with Armstrong. It would be laughable to take Armstrong's titles away and award them to a known doper.

But this is not a reason to do something. Perhaps the best action is to either leave the winner of those Tours blank, with the statement "No official winner due to doping controversies", or keep the names of the winners with a giant asterisk that acknowledges their place as champions of what was actually just a giant pharmacological experiment.

To defend Armstrong on this basis is symptomatic of the mindset that pushed cycling into this situation in the first place - cheating was condoned on the basis that it was a "necessary evil", "just to keep up". And believe me, I'm sympathetic to the plight of cyclists who face this decision. David Millar faced it. Jonathan Vaughters faced it, and both have written of the conflict they faced. Not everyone gives in. I dare say I'm grateful I didn't have to make such a decision, because I don't know that I would've resisted.

That confession out the way, my point is that we know others doped too. Many have been caught. To allow an athlete to get away with it for that reason is just not good enough. If there is a rule, then it must be enforced as many times as is necessary.

4. It's 13 years too late, why does it matter now?

It matters now for a few reasons. In fact, it's absolutely crucial now.

First, remember that this was never solely a case against Lance Armstrong. Yes, he's the biggest name in the case, the media spotlight falls squarely on him, but there were other defendants in what was actually a "conspiracy to dope case". Johan Bruyneel is the next biggest name, but so too, we care about the doctors, like Michele Ferrari, who oversaw the doping conspiracy. Armstrong may have left the sport, at least as a competitor, but others are still there as doctors, managers, and if cycling is to move beyond its past, those people need to be removed from it.

Secondly, if you adopt the view that says "it's been 7 years, move on", then you are effectively saying to the current generation that "as long as you can get away with it for long enough, you can have it forever". And I appreciate that there is a statute of limitations, and it does seem ridiculous at some point to go back. But given the anti-doping landscape, even from a scientific perspective, if you know that drugs are used today that will only be detectable in ten years, fifteen years, you should recognize that such limitations should not apply.

Is it not a bit ridiculous to change the winner of a sport 12 years after the fact? Yes it is, but that's still better than never knowing, and never understanding who the true champion is. Valerie Adams was recently awarded the Olympic gold in the women's shot put after Nadzeya Ostapchuk failed a drug test. Adams was denied her gold medal ceremony. The woman in fourth was denied a ceremony at all. But today, they both know that they are the rightful gold and bronze medalists, respectively. Would you rather have a silver medal with a ceremony, or a gold medal even though your ceremony was denied? I believe that a hard line on doping (which is fraud, after all) should see that dopers are told "If you dope, then it doesn't matter how long it takes us to figure it out, when we do, you will be sanctioned".

Take a rider in 2012. If that cyclist knows with certainty that his samples will be stored for years, and if knows that his victories today will be questioned tomorrow based not only on new tests, but on "non-analytical positives" and the accounts of those who know his illegal actions and secrets, I'd like to think it's a pretty effective deterrent. For all the negative attitudes in the sport, and the bizarre dismissal of anti-doping authorities' attempts to clean up the sport, those within cycling have to change their behavior when they know that cheating today will be punished, even if "tomorrow" is years away.

A no-compromise attitude to doping is exactly the reason USADA launched the case, and did exactly what they were mandated to do. Aside from the fact that they were pursuing many people still active in the sport, they also represent an honest effort to clean up the sport.

And, on that note, the reaction from within cycling is very worrying. This is the best article I've seen written on it. It's a little difficult to read at first, because of the deliberate use of what I'll call "pirate spelling", but just give it a read and try not to let the spelling affect you (it will grow on your). It makes the point that those in cycling are arguing that Armstrong has little to do with the sport now, and that it should be left alone. That's not true - Armstrong is still involved, and his legacy pervades the sport, so it must be addressed. Turning blind eyes is, to repeat, what put us here to begin with. Sometimes you have to burn something right down to rebuild it. Another good piece is written by Gerard Vroomen, who also points out the current nature of those so called "ancient history" actions, and calls for an opinion, any opinion.

Such a sad reaction, given that this was cycling's latest great chance to say "We condemn dopers, and if Armstrong doped, then this is a great day for cycling". Go further - many of those in the sport KNOW that Armstrong doped, this is the ideal chance to say so, to add to the "image" of a sport that wants to clean itself up.

Yet, that opportunity was missed. We get deafening silence and "no comments", and I struggle to see what might keep a genuinely clean sport from celebrating the punishment of its greatest fraud. It is truly bizarre, and for all the hope that I have in the better testing, the media pressure, the sponsor pressure to clean up the sport, this kind of continued silence, the ongoing omerta, makes me very despondent.

And don't even mention the UCI, whose reaction to the USADA case has been nothing short of embarrassing. Whatever happens next, whether it is the slow emergence of the evidence in the USADA case (which I do want to see more of), or the arbitration of Bruyneel, I hope that more information emerges on how the UCI might have been complicit in the Armstrong era. Their bizarre, muddled response betrayed an organization at sea, and maybe their involvement in this will be exposed, making that the best possible result of the investigation.

Regardless, I don't see the issue going away. It may be over for Armstrong according to his statement, but with the possibility that SCA and the Sunday Times are looking at legal action, and the slow trickle of new information, I'm sure the mountain of testimonies will only grow.

Once again, that either means you're going to have an even bigger conspiracy against Armstrong to blame, or you'll have more proof than ever that it was, to quote Betsy Andreu, perhaps one of the very first whistleblowers in this case, "this wasarguably the biggest fraud in the history of sport. Bernie Madoff would be proud. Maybe even jealous"

And, cue opinions! (and the "stick to science" bat!)

Ross

London 2012: Live Men's marathon analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:14:00 +0000

London 2012: Men's marathon live analysis and splits

Gold for Uganda, as Kiprotich steals the show

Stephen Kiprotich of Uganda is your 2012 Olympic marathon champion. In a stunning result, the unheralded 23-year old from Uganda surprised the fancied Kenyans to win the Olympic track and field programme's final medal.

His reward is a gold medal, to be handed out at the closing ceremony. You'd be forgiven for not knowing much about the new Olympic champion, because his credentials coming in said nothing of what he was about to do.

Kiprotich, at only 23, is relatively new to the marathon, but his last three performances told little of his potential. He has a 2:07:20 PB in the marathon, run in Enschede in 2011. He ran a 2:07:50 in Tokyo this year, and was 13th in the IAAF World Championships marathon last year (2:12:57).

His track credentials are nothing special (27:58), but that is likely because he's never run seriously for track times. His half marathon PB is "only" 62:52, also nothing to scare the sub-60 min Kenyans into thinking he would be the man to beat them today.

That he was, however, and he pulled off a huge surprise to win Uganda's first gold.

An intriguing race

The race was intriguing throughout, set up by early Kenyan aggression, but it became a race of attrition.

Consider for example that the halfway split was 1:03:15 for early leader Kipsang, with the chase group (including Kiprotich) 16 seconds back. Their split was therefore 1:03:31, and the winning time was 2:08:01. That means that Kiprotich ran a 1:04:30 second half, a minute slower than the first and he was closest to running an even pace of the early leaders (I'll check later to see if a strong finish was closer, but I doubt it. Keflezighi, for example, was a very strong finisher, but he went through halfway in 1:04:30 and finished in 2:11:06 (1:06:36))

The rest collapsed under the pressure, and in the conditions. Abel Kirui, a proven championship runner, was second, 26 seconds behind, and Kipsang finished third, a full 1:36 down. Other big favourites were totally blown away. The Ethiopian challenge is perhaps best exemplified by Abshero, who was in the chase group until after halfway, but then got dropped and went backwards at an incredible rate. Having gone through 25km in 1:15:05 with the chase group, he went through 35km in 1:49:22, which included a 5km segment of 19:03, before he stepped off the road. The other Ethiopians also didn't not finish, with Sifar actually losing contact as early as 10km before he stopped.

A terrible day for Ethiopia, then, and a disappointing day for Kenya, despite getting two men onto the podium. After what has been a disappointing Games for them, they'd have been hoping that their most dominant event, the Marathon, would at least provide some desired gold, to defend the title the late Sammy Wanjiru won in Beijing.

It was not to be, though they raced much more aggressively than we've seen so far in the distance races in Beijing.

The race as it unfolded

There were echoes of Wanjiru in the race today, because Kipsang took the race lead as early as 10km, with an aggressive 14;12 split from 10km to 15km, and opened a lead that got up to 16 seconds.

The chasers eventually reeled him in, but not before huge damage had been done to most of the field. By the time the race re-formed at the front, around the 27km, there were only three men left - Kipsang, Kirui and Kiprotich. The Ethiopian challenge had been seen off, as first Sifer, then Fekele and then Abshero were blown away.

The three were left to sort out the medals, and there was a moment, around 35k, where it seemed that the Kenyans had broken the resistance of their East African neighbour. Kiprotich dropped off, not substantially, just by about 10m, but it seemed that it was the first sign of his impending slow down, because it co-incided with the slowest interval of the race (15:48). However, he was well in control, caught up at 37km, and then went straight past.

At that moment, the Kenyan response simply did not come. The pre-race favorites, having dealt with the Ethiopian threat, now found themselves trailing a man who they must surely have discounted as a serious challenger.

But Kiprotich was the man on the day, and his final 5km were unchallenged. He is not the first man from Uganda to win Olympic Gold, but this is surely their greatest triumph.

The entire race, as it unfolded, is in the post below, where I made real-time comments. Feel free to relive the final event of the London Games' athletic programme

Live splits

Welcome to the London Olympic marathon. The race is underway, and over the next two hours, I'll post the 5km interval times and some thoughts on the race as it unfolds.

5km - 15:23, projecting 2:09:49
10km - 30:46, so another 15:23 split for the last 5km
15km - 44:58, the last 5km in 14:12. The chase pack is 13 secs back (45:11)
20km - 59:57. Last 5km in 14:59. Chase pack is 14 seconds behind
Halfway - 1:03:15, with 16 seconds to the chase (1:03:31)
25km - 1:14:58, a 15:01 for the last 5km, and the gap is now 7 seconds
30km - 1:30:15, all together. Kipsang did 15:17, the rest 15:10 for last 5km
35km - 1:46:03. Last 5km in 15:48, the slowest of the race.
40km - 2:01:12. Last 5km in 15:09, and Kiprotich makes the gold-winning move
Finish - 2:08:01. Last 2.2km in 6:49 (3:06/km)

Finish

Uganda have gold in the men's marathon, courtesy 23-year old Stephen Kiprotich. The Ugandan made the race's decisive move at 37km, and ran the final 5km on his own, with the favored Kenyans in his wake. His winning time was 2:08:01, quite a lot slower than the halfway split suggested, but it was a race of attrition and Kiprotich was its best survivor!

His final 2.2km were not spectacular (6:49, 3:06/km), but they didn't need to be - he had a substantial lead and managed to increase it to 26 seconds on the line.

Second went to Abel Kirui, proven championship runner, in 2:08:27, with bronze to early aggressor Kipsang in 2:09:37.

Incredible result, huge surprise, and Kenya finish the Games with only two golds, having expected so many more.

40km

Stephen Kiprotich is now 19 seconds ahead of Kirui, with Kipsang a further 32 seconds back. With only 2km to go, that's the gold medal for Uganda, barring an absolute disaster.

His last 5km were run in 15:09, a significant jump in pace from the preceding interval, run in 15:48. Kiprotich looks good enough to extend that lead, let alone defend it, and Uganda are on their way to their most celebrated Olympic medal ever.

38km

Stephen Kiprotich now was a lead that looks to be decisive, it's around 100m, and he shows no signs of coming back. Amazing story. Here's some information on the Ugandan:

He has a 2:07:20 PB in the marathon, run in Enschede in 2011. He ran a 2:07:50 in Tokyo this year, and was 13th in the IAAF World Championships marathon last year (2:12:57).

His track credentials are nothing special (27:58), but that is likely because he's never run seriously for track times. His half marathon PB is "only" 62:52, also nothing to scare the sub-60 min Kenyans into thinking he would be the man to beat them today.

He is only 23 years old, so new to the marathon, but this is just a remarkable run, one which has certainly taken me by surprise. This will be one of the big surprises of the Games, if not Olympic marathon in recent memory, though this is a race that does tend to produce surprises.

37km

Kiprotich has come back. Incredible! Having dropped off by 10 m at 35km, he has come back and made all those early projections look foolish. He moved past the Kenyans at the 37km mark and soon opened a big, big lead.

Kirui is trying to give chase, but the response is slow. If Kiprotich can hold this, he'll win gold for Uganda, and what an amazing story that will be. Did anyone pick this?

36km

As I typed that, it was Kipsang who moved clear again. It's not a surge as much as a subtle increase in pace, but it was enough to gap Kirui, who is now running 5m back. The elastic has not broken, but was certainly stretched. They've now come back together.

35km

The last five kilometers have been covered in 15:48, the slowest of the race by a considerable amount. Yet despite that, the pace seems to have dropped Kiprotich of Uganda, and so Kirui and Kipsang, who have been talking to one another for most of the last five kilometers, seem to have sorted out gold and silver for Kenya.

Unless Kiprotich can claw his way back, that's how the final 7km will play out. The pace is not likely to stay at that 15:48 level, it should get faster, so it will be a difficult ask. Kipsang looks very fluid and may be the favourite now.

30km

The "catch" came at about 27km, and Kipsang's "lonely vigil" suddenly became a threesome, as he was joined by Stephen Kiprotich and Abel Kirui. The pace then held firm, which is not a surprise. It's not as though Kipsang was cracking to allow the chase to catch him - his pace has held constant since the 15km mark, and they continue to run around 15km per 5km.

The medals will certainly come from these three, Abshero has continued to drop back, and is 46 seconds behind. dos Santos of Brazil is another five seconds back and will probably take fourth place soon. If anything happens to the front three, he's the likeliest other medal winner, but the three in front seem to have this race controlled and will probably fight out gold, silver and bronze.

If people think Kipsang has made his move in this race, they're wrong - he'll be a factor in the final 5km, I'm sure of it, because what he did is not much different to anyone else, and so he's in a good position right now.

Kirui looked spectacular in London when he surged, and then he exploded and finished terribly. His turn of speed is perhaps the big danger for gold now. I'd make him the favorite of the three.

The last 5km, from 25km to 30km, were run in 15:17 (for Kipsang, the chase is a little faster - 15:10).

The projected time, meanwhile, is 2:06:56, which means the Olympic record may still be on, but is slipping away right now. If there are surges, they'll go quicker.

26km

Abshero is gone! So Ethiopia has lost its final medal contender before the 30km mark, and that is a surprise. The chase is now Kirui and Kiprotich, with Kipsang ahead. As expected, it's East Africa to the fore, but possibly, without Ethiopia.

Abshero's chance here relies on the pace dropping once Kipsang is caught, which looks like within the next few minutes. A lull in the pace may allow him back, as we saw in the women's race where Arkhipova looked off the back a few times, but came back and fought for bronze.

25km

Kipsang is still holding the lead, but the urgency in the chase group has begun to erode it. It's now 7 seconds, and the last 5km were run in 15:01 by Kipsang, which means the chase group have run a 14:54.

What the chase has done is fragment, and it's now down to only three. They are led by Stephen Kiprotich, who has been largely responsible for the increase in pace from behind. The others are Abshero, the lone Ethiopian, and Abel Kirui.

23km

The chase group is now starting to split too. Stephen Kiprotich took the group through Leadenhall market very aggressively, and the compact group was suddenly stretched. This is the pressure of Kipsang now filtering its way back to the chase, who have presumably recognized that they need to respond to bring that gap of 16 seconds down.

If anything, the gap is growing. Perhaps Kipsang has done what he did in London earlier this year, surging at the half marathon mark. The next split will be interesting.

Halfway

Halfway has been reached in 1:03:15, with the chase group at 16 seconds down. It's now a chase group of six, as Eritrea's Asmerom has also fallen off the pace.

The chase is now made of Feleke and Abshero of Ethiopia, Kirui of Kenya, Kiprotich of Uganda, dos Santos of Brazil and Mokoka of South Africa. Although as I write that, dos Santos has begun to drop off the group and so it's down to five.

At the front, Kipsang stops to go back for his energy drink, which means he lost a second or two at the 22km water point.

20km

Kipsang has relented only slightly, running the last five kilometers in 14:59.

That has helped him defend his lead, which now stands at 14 seconds. That chase group is now down to seven, with Emmanuel Mutai dropping off the back. He was the reserve added to the team after the withdrawal of Moses Mosop. Many felt that Geoffrey Mutai would have been a better pick. Hindsight is easy of course, but I suspect those calls now seem a little insightful.

Meanwhile, the stretch from 17 to 18km claimed two of the three Americans in the race. First Ryan Hall stopped, holding his right hamstring, it seemed. Then Abdirahman stopped, so only Keflezighi is left now.

15km

Wilson Kipsang, winner of the 2012 London marathon, has opened a lead of 13 seconds over a chase group of 8. All the main protagonists are there with the exception of Dino Sefir, who fell out of the group at about 10km. The chase thus comprises two Ethiopians (Abshero & Feleke), two Kenyans (Mutai and Kirui), an Eritrean (Asmerom), a South African (Mokoka), a Ugandan (Kiprotich) and a Brazilian (dos Santos).

The last 5km were run in 14:12, which explains that huge explosion in the race from 10km onwards. The time now projects a 2:06:29, but don't expect the next 10km to be run at the same pace, of course. The Olympic record of Wanjiru is probably still on, however.

Fascinating battle here, because the pressure has been applied by the race favourite.

The pressure has put paid to everyone else - Ryan Hall and Keflezighi are off the back, and they'll hope to run their own race for something in the range of 2:08, and hope that the early pace claims some victims.

12km

Kipsang has actually created a small gap, and we are only at 12km. Amazing early aggression. It was expected that Kenya would try to assert control on the race, but to do it this early is very surprising. They took the lead shortly after 10km, once De Almeida had been caught, and the field split almost instantly. Sefir and Ryan Hall were the first casualties, but now many have been dropped.

The front of the race has been trimmed to just over a handful, but Kipsang has pulled Abshero clear and there are gaps. Kipsang is 10m clear of Abshero who is 5m clear of the chase group of maybe six.

Abshero has now fallen back into the pack, and there are now 7 men chasing the leader Kipsang, whose lead has grown to perhaps 7 or 8 seconds.

11km

In the battle of Ethiopia and Kenya, it's first blood Kenya, and that's because Ethiopia's Dino Sefir is off the back of the group. And so is Ryan Hall. That's very surprising, because we're only at 11km, and the pace is "only" 2:09:49, yet two of the pre-race favourites are already off the back.

At the front, Kenya have again assumed the lead, with Kipsang pressing the pace. It certainly seems to have gotten faster, because the front group has been cut to about 12 men already.

10km

There is a breakaway leader, about 50m off the front of the main field. It's Brazil's De Almeida, but the time for the main group is 30: . That's a 15:23 for the last 5km, identical to the first 5km. So even paced as can be.

Remember back to the women's race - the pace was very steady for the first half, and then when it picked up, it didn't reach the same kinds of speeds we are used to seeing in the city marathons. That's a function of the tight turns on the course, and the change in surfaces, which let some of the athletes to call it the hardest race they'd ever run. That will be a significant factor in the second half of this race.

Right now, it's all rather sedate.

5km

The 5km mark is reached in 15:23, and the Africans are already showing at the front. Maybe the Kenyans are borrowing from Beijing, where Wanjiru's aggression perhaps changed the way marathons are run. They're at the front, but the group is big, because the pace is respectable, but not super fast. Right now, it's projecting a 2:09:49.

Start and preview

The race has been billed as a clash between Kenya and Ethiopia. 2011 was of course Kenya's year - all 20 of the top times were run by Kenyans in an unparalleled show of dominance by one nation. That included the winners of every single major city marathon, and the world record.

2012 has been more evenly matched - Ethiopia stole the Dubai marathon with a host of fast times, and then also won Rotterdam, and set this race up beautifully. More on the protagonists as the race unfolds, but it seems that most are forecasting this as a Kenya vs Ethiopia showdown, with Abshero and Kipsang their likeliest champions. The Americans, in the form of Hall and Keflezighi in particular, may disrupt the battle in the same what that Arkhiopova did in the women's race.

My initial thought is that Ethiopia should be favoured, because their athletes last raced in late January in Dubai, compared to the Kenyans who raced in April in London's city marathon.

For example, Ayele Absehero and Dino Sefer of Ethiopia have had 198 days since their last marathon, whereas Wilson Kipsang has had 112 days. Those 86 days matter in a race this competitive. (Thanks, by the way, to Wayne Do Rego for the numbers - I'll do a proper post with his analysis after the race!)

This, plus the fact that it has been a very poor Games for Kenya lead me to think that Ethiopia hold the cards here. Kenya's athletes have, to me, seemed over-done and tactically poor. They've been run out of medals in the women's 800m and men's 1500m and 10,000m races, and have seen their big favourites settle for minor medals. Turning that around will be difficult.

We are coming up to five kilometers, however, in a big group, so let's get the projections going!

Ross

Women's 800m: Analysing Semenya & other insights

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:58:00 +0000

London 2012: Women's 800m perplexity, analyzing Semenya's race

On Thursday night, David Rudisha led home the greatest 800m race we've ever seen - he pulled the field to a world record for every single finishing position, 7 personal bests and three national records.

Tonight, Mariya Savinova led home the women's 800m final, but it leaned more towards the curious and peculiar than the spectacular. That is primarily because of the manner with which Caster Semenya, South Africa's flag bearer, ran to win the silver medal. Savinova was, as usually, tactically superb, fast and timed her effort perfectly. She won in 1:56.19 to add to last year's World title. The real story, at least for me and all those discussing it on Twitter, was Semenya, and so let's talk about that a little.

If you saw the race, you'll know what I'm referring to - she dropped into 8th place by 300m, and stayed there for the next 300m. At the bell, she was 1.38s behind the leader. Down the back straight with 280m to go, when Pamela Jelimo made the race's first move, Semenya was perhaps 12m back, in last place, and not even close to responding, as you can see in the screenshot below.

With 200m to run, Semenya had moved into 7th, picking up a tiring Niyonsaba, but was still well off Jelimo, a pre-race favourite. Meanwhile, Savinova had by now begun to make her move too. This was the move that Semenya must have known would determine gold and silver, and in her semi-final, she'd shown the ability to respond to those tactics. Tonight, in the final, she was distant from the action.

With 140m to go, Savinova was making the race's decisive move, but still Semenya had not responded - she was by now up to 6th place, however, picking off the fading Jepkosgei. I kept waiting for a move, because she'd shown in her semi that she was not tactically unaware, but it just never came.

Savinova would go on to open a commanding lead, and with 50m to go, the race was over. Only Poistogova and Jelimo went with her coming off the final bend, while Semenya was still in 6th.

Jelimo's legs imploded around 60m from the line and she went backwards. By now, finally going forward was Semenya who would move incredibly rapidly through the field and close down everyone in front of her with the exception of Savinova. Semenya ended with a season's best of 1:57.23, marginally faster than the 1:57.67 she ran to win her semi-final, but it was a race run in a totally different manner.

This led Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden to tweet the following immediately after the race - Semenya was "disengaged". He's not accusing her of anything, but it's not difficult to see where the next step lies, and that's exactly what has happened since the race.

History repeating itself with Semenya - a common allegation

Unfortunately, this kind of speculation is becoming all too familiar for Caster Semenya. Last year in Daegu, the race strategy was different, but the result was identical (Savinova-Semenya), and the speculation after the race was the same. There, Semenya was attentive and ran near the front, before moving into the lead with 180m to go. Savinova followed, but Semenya looked strong enough to win until the final 30m, where she suddenly slowed and Savinova swept by to win. The forums were soon buzzing with allegations that Semenya had lost on purpose.

This year, the same has happened basically every single time Semenya has run in the European meetings. At Diamond League meets, she was often seen languishing at the back, looking "disinterested" but running solid 1:59 to 2:00 times while her major rivals - Jelimo and Fantu Magiso in particular - were running 1:56 to 1:57. People were accusing Semenya of running slowly on purpose, so that she avoids too much scrutiny, that she is 'scared' to win because of the intense allegation it may bring.

Semenya - evaluated differently because of her past

You see, Semenya is not "judged normally" in athletic circles, and that has everything to do with the sex verification controversy involving her after she exploded onto the world scene in Berlin. Since being questioned, she spent nine months away from the track, before returning amid much secrecy and with slower times than before. The speculation bandwagon kicked off, and when she was winning, she was accused of cheating, when she was losing, she was accused of not trying.

She was, and remains, in an impossible situation, because every result and every move is looked at through a filter. It is a filter that colors her performances according to male vs female, cheating vs throwing it on purpose, and when she produces racing performances like tonight, that filter is rather vivid.

The prevailing "allegation", ever since her return in 2010, is that she is running slowly to stay under the radar, avoiding winning and the questions this would undoubtedly bring. If that's the plan, then it sure isn't working, because what we saw today (and in Daegu) draws more allegation than a "typical race", in my opinion. But more on that shortly.

Possibility # 1: Semenya may simply not have the speed

The current speculation (and before accusing people of ignorance and stoking the fires of controversy, just have a look at the forums and Twitter to see the reaction to Semenya's race) is thus fueled by Semenya's history. Within the ten minutes of the race finishing, I got 34 tweets asking whether she'd "thrown it", or "tried to avoid winning gold". One person demanded a full investigation into why she was jogging. Another said that he'd never seen someone look so "aerobic" at the finish of an 800m race.

Of course, this may all be a totally misplaced accusation. Maybe Semenya just didn't have the physiological capacity to run the race tactics people are accustomed to seeing. Maybe she was just not good enough to go with that early pace, and to respond to those surgest. Perhaps there is nothing to her performance other than that she runs a more even pace than her rivals.

A comparison between her semi-final and this race is interesting in this regard. In that semi, she went through 400m in just over 58 seconds, 600m in about 1:28 and then closed the final 200m in 29.5s, looking like she had something in reserve.

Tonight, she went through 400m in 57.69s, then through 600m in about 1:27.1, and then closed in a touch over 30 seconds. My point is, her performance in the final was slightly faster at every stage than the semi, until she closed slower over the final 200m. To finish SLOWER than she did in the semi implies that she has little reserve and that she is closer to the limit than she looks. She wasn't actually that fast over the final 200m, it's just that everyone else was very slow!

It's possible that she doesn't have the speed (or psychological capacity and confidence) to be able to run a 56-second first lap, or a 28 second 200m split, regardless of when in the race it happens. If you look at Semenya, her running style is very laboured - the commentator described her as "lumbering" and that's about right. She lacks a knee lift, and her heel-flick is also very limited, so it is possible that she lacks the ability to change pace much, and so I have to put forward the possibility that she may not actually have the capacity to respond to surges, and maybe a 28-29-29-30 race breakdown is as fast as Semenya can go.

The rest of the race, incidentally, went 27s to 200m, then 29s to 400 (56.3 at the bell), and then 29.2s for the next 200m, and closed, for the most part, in 32s. So, you have Semenya with a 28-29-29-30 (57.69s & 59.54s), running against everyone else with a 27-29-29-32 (Jelimo, for example, was 56.66s & 60.93s). In this regard, Semenya actually didn't finish the race fast, as much as everyone else finished it really slowly. The one exception of course was Savinova, who closed the final 200m in just under 30 seconds (57.29s and 58.90s halves).

The rest, Jelimo in particular, were terribly slow over the final 200m.

Not that I'm trying to say that Semenya ran a good race - you simply cannot allow the moves of your two main rivals to go completely unnoticed, but I am saying that it's possible that Semenya does not have the ability to run the race any other way - she may well be at her limit and unable to run those 28s 200m splits mid-race. The fact that she looks so easy doing it is neither here nor there. Go on YouTube and look up her race at the World Junior Championships in Poland in 2008. She finished second last in her semi-final, and looked the same as she did today. That was long before any controversy, or any need to avoid scrutiny. Semenya is just a very 'casual', disengaged runner.

The other speculation - let the guesswork begin

That said, there is still much to be debated about the case. Once you have dealt with that possibility that her apparent "throwing it" and "sandbagging" tactic may just be that she can't match the speed of the first 600m in the race, then you get on to dealing with the other speculation.

I'm going to simplify my answer as much as I can, and then try to go into detail to explain some thoughts and insights. The simple answer is "I don't know what happened. Your guess is as good as mine. And I understand the questions, but there are no answers, we just do not know".

Right, now, having dealt with that, let's discuss the current discussion! For this, a brief history lesson on her case, which most of you will know, so jump ahead a section. If you're new, read on.

The history and secrecy fuels speculation

Since day one, Caster Semenya has presented an insoluble problem for the sport. The biggest problem, aside from the resolving the obvious debate about her performance, is the secrecy which has surrounded her story since the case first broke. I suspect there is no satisfactory answer to this story, at any level. Even going back to 2009, when debate first began, it was impossible to say what should be done. Did she have an intersex condition? That part would be easy to find out - the science and biology is not that complicated. In 2010, I wrote a scientific review paper on the subject with geneticist Prof Malcolm Collins, summarizing the history, the physiology and performance implications of sex verification in sport, for those interested.

But, does the condition provide an advantage? And if it does, should that be the basis for excluding her from competition - it's a natural advantage, after all? That's a whole lot trickier, and it's an ethical, moral and social debate for which I think there is no consensus. Each will have their own opinion.

However, the debate still exists, and rather than allowing radical speculation, I hope it is helpful to consider the story in a thoughtful manner, hence my thoughts below.

A point on context - being in South Africa, I'm exposed to more news and speculation about Semenya than perhaps most, and so my views are kind of informed by years of conversation with people, reports, information from people connected to the case etc. But I want to stress upfront that just like the rest of the world, with maybe a few exceptions, we are all guessing here.

If you were to right the summary version of this history, it would go as follows: Q: "What happened to Semenya in 2009/2010 to allow her to compete?" A: "We don't know". Next question: "How do we explain the huge variability in Semenya's performances in 2011 and 2012, where she goes from the back of the field in a Diamond league event and struggling to break 1:59 to being utterly dominant in the major championships?" Answer: "We don't know.

The short version is that we just don't know anything about anything, and so we speculate as much as possible, maybe in an informed way, weighing the possibilities, but very few people know the truth, and they are not talking. Should we speculate at all? Probably not. We should, in theory, "trust" the IAAF, who were involved in the process from Day 1, and say that if they have cleared her to run, then we should just accept that. And officially, that would be the correct position to take.

Significant improvements in a short time ask the questions

However, the reality is that just as we SHOULD question performances that we regard as suspect, I think it's naive and 'deliberately ignorant' to ignore the questions that arise from Semenya's case. Here, it is her performance that asks the questions, not the history of her case. That history tells us that the IAAF worked with Semenya, cleared her, and she should be treated as any other athlete. The case is closed, it was resolved and is in the past. The problem is that the performances re-open that door, and because nothing is known, it leads to speculation and accusation. The root cause is the secrecy around the case.

The first problem arises out of the sudden improvements Semenya makes at championships. Or put differently, it's how well off the pace she is in European races, before she arrives to championships looking close to unbeatable (by all but Savinova, it turns out). This year, Semenya had been "stuck" in the 1:59 to 2:01 range since April, and had run half a dozen races where she was unable to get faster. Then suddenly, she runs 1:57 looking rather easy, and it is going to cause questions.

Remember, this is exactly the same thing that was done for Ye Shiwen of China and for Makhloufi of Algeria - they improved significantly in a short time, it was deemed "peculiar" and the speculation of doping began. Semenya's improvement is similar, if not larger in magnitude over a shorter period, and so the same logic leads to questions. The difference is that once asked for Semenya, the question will not have us zoning in on doping as has happened for Ye Shiwen or Makhloufi, it will return to the gender controversy, and we will unfairly make accusations about gender, all over again. Is it right? No. It is understandable? Yes.

The secrecy - the root cause of speculation

And the reason it's going to happen is because of the failure in management of the message, not only by the IAAF, but by Semenya's camp. To explain, the two key points, which I think are more important than the performance:

1) The case should never have been leaked in the first place. Obviously. That was a mistake for which Semenya will "pay" for the rest of her career, and it has exposed her to the most invasive scrutiny I think anyone can imagine. I think it is remarkable that she has continued to compete, and how she has stood up under that kind of pressure. Most would not cope at all, let alone resume their athletic careers. She's done that, and she was rightly given the honor of being our flag bearer, and the courage and character she shows to run at all is amazing.

2) Having said this, once the story broke, and the athletics world knew there was a question, then in my opinion, it had to be followed through to its conclusion and made known what the outcome was. And simply clearing her to compete many months later is not the same as saying that the matter was concluded. People are notoriously mistrusting of sports governing bodies, and they're even more mistrusting of athletes. There are too many dishonest athletes to believe what we see with no small dose of skepticism. So, when Semenya resumed her career in 2010, I felt that it would be important for her to make some kind of announcement to say that the matter had been resolved, and how. Perhaps this should have been done by the authorities. But it should have been done by someone, to at least control the message.

But what happened instead was that a veil of secrecy fell over the story, and all of a sudden, nobody was saying anything. The secrecy grew and grew, until she began running again. But she was not dominating - having destroyed the best in the world in 2009, she was now 4 to 5 seconds slower, looking sluggish and losing races. Her subsequent performances was gone up and down wildly and it has been absolutely impossible to predict what is coming next.

Everyone can see this unusual situation, they know that they are seeing 'abnormal' variations in performance, but nobody can say why. And so they speculate. The problem is that when you fail to tell people the truth, they tend to make up the truth. And the made up truth is almost always worse than the reality. And so now, we sit in a situation where people will either allege that:

Nothing happened in the first case, and she is still a man (this is ignorant, because that clearly was never true to begin with - the biology of sex is far more complex than this), or
She got treated but it's not working, or
She got treatment but is able to manipulate it to optimize her performance whenever she wants to - it slows her down in a predictable way, so she can use treatment as she pleases to find those improvements, or
She is deliberately losing races to avoid suspicion, as is happening after the Olympic Games

To repeat, we simply do not know what transpired, and therefore we cannot know whether any of the above options is true. If I were forced to give my thoughts, I'd say that option 1) is impossible - we know something happened. Reading between the lines, based on the time it took, I'd fairly confidently speculate that she received medical treatment, and probably still is. Thus, the next three options are possible. I don't know what treatment might involve, or whether she can manipulate it. I suspect that it would be possible, just as any doping is possible. But I'd be surprised if it was this simple.

I simply cannot see option 4) being true - why would you try to avoid detection by going from last to first? The contrast in performance is just so enormous that people will notice it EVEN MORE! If you are going to fly under the radar, then your approach would be to look as normal as possible. Going from nowhere to dominating is not "normal", and so if they are deliberately slowing down to lose races, then it's a strategy that is not only bizarre, but also foolish. I just can't see it as being possible.

Unfair, but understandable suspicion and speculation

There is also a fifth option, namely that nothing is wrong, and that she's just getting her training right when it matters, and that her "bizarre" race strategy is nothing more than typical even-paced running, as I explained above. But people won't make that allegation. Why? Because they don't know anything, and they are driven by mistrust. Therefore, they will settle on one of the four options that 'feeds' their mistrust.

So they'll go with option 3 or 4 as most likely, and Semenya will face accusations that she is either cheating by manipulating her "advantage" through medical means, or she has been deceiving everyone for months leading up to the Games, and continues to NOT win on purpose.

Both are unfair, and, I suspect, incorrect. As I explained earlier, I think it's plausible that Semenya is running as fast as she can, and that 1:57.2 is the "limit" for her, in a more or less even race. Maybe with a little more confidence, she'll be able to get her fast lap down into the low-57s range and break 1:57 for the race this year, but it's not impossible that a 57.69s and 59.94s is Semenya at her limit. The sudden improvement in performance is more difficult to explain, but like any other debate based on performance, we must recognize that performance alone is not sufficient to reach a verdict!

It's also not difficult to see why people think differently - they don't know any better. And that's because of the secrecy around the whole thing, and it forces people to speculate. We shouldn't. We should accept the control of the IAAF and trust that they have identified and managed a potential problem. In an ideal world, that would happen. But I think it's naive to expect that of people. Until people know, they'll make it up and everyone loses in that equation.

If Semenya is to win people over, as she should - look at her interview after winning silver in Daegu, and tell me that this is not an athlete who is warm and genuine and worthy of positive sentiment - then the secrecy must be lifted. Easier said than done, of course. But what the future holds with these wild variations in performance, given the history of Semenya in the sport, is just not something to look forward to.

The marathon to close it down

The marathon tomorrow - join me at 11am London time for live splits and comments as it unfolds. It's Kenya's last chance to rescue what has been a miserable Games, highlighted (in a big way, of course) by Rudisha's golden world record and Kemboi's gold. They'll want gold in the marathon, but Ethiopia will be a stern test.

My money is on the Ethiopians - I think the Kenyans, who raced more recently, will struggle on the twisty course, and Kenya will regret not picking Geoffrey Mutai.

But join me tomorrow to see what transpires!

Ross

London 2012: Spectacular 800m

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:48:00 +0000

Rudisha lights up London with a world record. And more 800m thoughts

The London Olympics saw its first World Record on the track tonight, and not surprisingly, it came from David Rudisha, who ran from the front, gun to tape, to become the first man in history to break 1:41. His time was 1:40.91, and he pulled the other seven men to the fastest, most spectacular 800m race that we have ever seen. More on that below, along with some other thoughts on his race.

1) Rudisha's race strategy

The question ahead of the race, for many, was not whether Rudisha would win, but what the margin of victory would be. There has been no greater favorite in an athletic event at these Games than Rudisha. His form this year has been spectacular, he has won paced and unpaced races, he has run from the front and looked peerless.

The biggest question was perhaps around the tactics he would employ in the Olympic final. Front-running is the logical choice to most, because when you're about two seconds faster than the next fastest guy, you would want the pace to be beyond them. Why allow a final 200m sprint, where a different type of physiological attribute can determine success, when you have such dominance over the whole race? The problem in a final 200m sprint is that when the spread of runners is relatively narrow, the first 600m does enough "damage" physiologically that the person who is running with the greatest "reserve" is not guaranteed to win. The ability to close in say 25 seconds is not a function of that reserve, which means that a 1:44 man can beat a 1:41 if they both get to that position together. In Rudisha's case, I suspect he is so superior that he'd win anyway, but it becomes a far more open race than it might otherwise be.

So front-running was the option, and Rudisha was wise enough that he actually started to do this in his European races leading up to London. We have seen many times how athletes become so accustomed to paced races on the circuit that they seem all at sea during a tactical race - the Kenyans in the 1500m looked this way earlier this week. But Rudisha seemed ready, he had familiarized himself with the front-running pattern in a few races, including the Kenyan trials, and so everyone expected this approach. Once he led after the break at 100m, it was clear that he was going for it. It is easier said than done, however, largely for psychological reasons - putting yourself out as a pace-maker is never easy in an Olympic final.

It takes confidence and conviction, and Rudisha was good enough to do it. He led the field through the bell in 49.28s, and then began to open the gap with 300m to go. That's not surprising, because everyone in the race was running above themselves just to reach the 500m mark at that pace.

At 600m, which was passed in 1:14:30 (25.02s for the 200m split). Rudisha was clear, and on course for the record.

He slowed in the final 200m, covering it in 26.61s, but it was enough to break 1:41, and claim Kenya's second gold. The manner of the win, plus the bronze for Timothy Kitum, will be some consolation for the nation that expected more than they have won to date.

2) The race was spectacularly deep and fast

Rudisha was chased home by a host of sensational performances. In fact, every single position in the race set a world-place position. Second went to young Nijel Amos of Botswana (a surprise) in 1:41.73, fittingly equalling Seb Coe's old world record), and then a further three men went under 1:43. They included the two Americans, Duane Solomon and Nick Symmonds, who would surely not have believed that they'd break 1:43 and not even win a medal. Even in last place, Andrew Osagie ran 1:43.77. Only Abubaker Kaki of Sudan, who eventually finished 7th, did not run a personal best. Three national records were also set.

It was just a spectacularly fast and deep race, and while everyone who was in it might feel stunned at their times without medals, they were part of something truly remarkable. I suspect many would be wondering if a step up to 1500m might not make more sense, however - Rudisha is only 24!

3) The pacing - a pattern in the 800m

One final point about the race, and it relates to a peculiar pacing pattern that you see when you look at the best ever performances in the 800m event. Part of my PhD looked at the pacing strategies used in all the world records from 800m to 10,000m, and there's a pretty constant pattern in long-distance races. The 800m race is different, however, and is paced differently from other middle- or long-distance races.

However, I'm going to hold back on this discussion, for now, because David Epstein of Sports Illustrated will probably introduce it in his piece on the race. I'll provide you that link, as soon as it comes out, and then I'll add the detail once his article is up.

So that's for tomorrow, a discussion on pacing in the 800m event.

There is much more to be said about 800m running, but on the women's side. The semi-finals took place tonight, and they introduced us to a controversy that is just waiting to erupt when the finals happen on Saturday. Semenya is back, having battled all year for half a second here and there in the range of 1:59-2:00, she tonight won her semi, looking incredibly easy and in a time of 1:57. That's a 2 to 3% improvement, after a long season of many reasons 'stuck' at 1:59.

Cue yet another debate on "unrealistic" performance improvements, like those we saw with Ye Shiwen and Makhloufi. Except this time, it's not doping that will be discussed.

But that may be for another day, keep your eyes open for the debate.

Until tomorrow, which brings some relay finals, and the women's 5000m, the second part of a Tirunesh Dibaba double, perhaps?

Ross