Welcome to www.sportsscientists.com

The Science of Sport takes another step forward

This is just a very short post to update all of our readers about a new step we have taken here at The Science of Sport. We have continued to grow each month of our 15-month existence, adding more subscribers and visitors each month that goes by. So thanks to all of you who keep on coming back, and to all of our news readers who subscribe each day. And now we are pleased to announce that we now have our own domain name!

www.sportsscientists.com

Recently some of you may have now noticed that the address in your browser now reads www.sportsscientists.com. While we hope this gives us more recognition and helps build our "brand," we can say that thanks to the work of Blogger and Google this transition is entirely seamless for you and also for us. That means the move to the new domain name does not affect anyone. If your browser was bookmarked at http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com, then Blogger will simply redirect you to the new site. So there is absolutely nothing you must do to continue receiving our content here on the blog or via email!

An action-packed sporting period

Meanwhile, we will admittedly struggle to keep pace with all the happenings in the world of sport. For two guys with day jobs and with Jonathan's first baby arriving any day now (and we mean any day!), posting on the USA Track and Field Olympic Trials, USA Swimming Olympic Trials, Kenyan Olympic trials, Euro 2008, Wimbledon, and the Tour de France will prove too much to cover in a timely fashion. So apologies now, we will try to keep pace, but know now that some of the news and analysis will slip through the cracks. The Science of Sport is indeed a passion for us, but also a part-time endeavor for now.

We are watching it all, however, and will post on what we can each week. It is an exciting time for sports especially with Beijing now only about four weeks away!

Tour de France 2008 Stage 1

Valverde wins Stage 1: An early statement, but a physiological challenge awaits

Spain's Alejandro Valverde won the opening stage of the 2008 Tour de France today, winning a tough uphill sprint finish into Plumelec. The Spaniard is clearly in great form - he won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphine Libere earlier this season, and has carried that form into the first sprint finish of the Tour, though it was hardly a pure sprinter stage.

The tough finish ensured that most of the pure sprinters were dropped before the final kilometer, and a brief scan down the results shows that only Thor Hushovd and Fabian Cancellara (a sprinter at a stretch, admittedly) were able to remain in close proximity to the leaders. The final kilometer saw attack after attack going off the front of a relatively disordered peleton, and Kim Kirchen of Luxembourg looked to have made a decisive move with about 500m to go. But Valverde was able to bridge the gap and then move clear to take his stage victory, and also the leader's yellow jersey, since there were no time bonuses for the sprinters to snap up earlier on the stage.

Valverde's win, apart from confirmation that he is in great condition right at the moment, also presents him with a few conundrum's for the next couple of weeks, both tactical and physiological.

Firstly, to be in the leader's Yellow Jersey after day 1 of a Tour where he, along with Cadel Evans, is really the BIG favourite for the overall GC, means added pressure on him and his team. He was relatively dismissive of that pressure, saying that "I have no extra pressure now, I have already achieved two of my objectives in this Tour; wearing yellow and winning a stage".

And of course, defending that jersey will be far from the front of his mind right now, since there are fully two weeks to go before the Alpine stages begin, and that is likely where the Tour will be won and lost. I don't see any decisive days in the Pyrenees, at least for victory. The Tour may be lost in the Pyrenees, but it will be won in the Alps. So in that respect, Valverde is right.

Also, there is almost inevitably going to be a successful break-away in the first week, and given the tough, hilly nature of the first week, that break could well throw up the race's next maillot jaune. Failing that, the time-trial on Tuesday will probably see a change in leader, since it's a relatively short time-trial (29 km) and Cancellara is only seven seconds down.

Point is, Valverde's prospects of going wire to wire to win the race seem slim, tactically speaking. And this is a good thing, because to do this physiologically is very tough.

I must confess that I was initially surprised at the presence of both he and Cadel Evans at the very front of the peloton in the sprint today. Evans finished sixth, only one second back. However, the way the race unfolded, the strong men had to come to the front, because in the end, only thirteen men finished in the first group, with a further 35 back by 7 seconds. So on reflection, their presence is perhaps not that surprising, and is merely a reflection on the quality of the ride required to remain in contention on today's finish. However, what is still surprising to me is thier contention for the stage win.

As much as I'm not a Lance-apologist (sorry...), one thing (among many, admittedly) that Armstrong got right for the Tour de France was the allocation of effort over the three weeks of racing. Would he have fought hard for the win on the opening day of the Tour? Maybe...interesting to speculate without ever really figuring out an answer.

Physiologically, however, one has to look at Valverde and question whether it's possible to ride a three-week stage race effectively having won a single-day-classic earlier this year, then winning Dauphine Libere three weeks ago, and now racing at the sharp edge of the peloton on day ONE of the main race. That kind of sustained performance level is very difficult to achieve.

In his fantastic book "Lance Armstrong's War" (also released as "Tour de Force", in SA anyway), Daniel Coyle wrote about how cyclists remain "on the razor's edge" in their training - they are always a micrometer from going too hard, pushing beyond the limits of recovery and failing into what in physiology is called an "over-reached" state. Over-reaching rapidly becomes over-training, which I'm sure most readers will have heard of.

Now, it's impossible to say without any data, so we're speculating as wildly as the next person, but is it possible to be in Classics shape in April and May, then stage race shape in June, and still remain on top form well into July? I suspect not, and so my prediction for Valverde is that he features very highly in the first 10 days of the Tour - a Pyrenean mountain stage win is a distinct possibility, but his razor's edge will come in the Alps, when his challenge falls away. Evans, who has been showing signs of form the whole year, is likely, in my view, to get stronger as the race progresses, and I would pick him as the favourite.

Time will tell, however, and it promises to be a great race. Not to mention the other four or five big contenders, like Cunego (7 seconds down today) and Schleck. Tuesday should be the first real indication.

Ross

The Beijing Olympics: Pollution and performance

The Beijing Marathon - Pollution and Performance

Yesterday bought the sensational news that Haile Gebrselassie had made the "99% sure" decision to withdraw from the Olympic Marathon in Beijing and rather enter the 10,000m event.

His reason? The pollution, combined with his asthma, the heat and the humidity in Beijing posed a risk to his health, and he did not wish to compromise his chances in the 2012 London Olympics, or his ambition to run a 2:03 Marathon in the future.

Gebrselassie is a great athlete, maybe the greatest ever, but this story has a bizarre sound to it. For one thing, to make a decision now based on a race he hopes to run in four years' time, when there's even less chance of being competitive (he'll be 39, at the end of a career that has lasted 19 years!) does not seem a very sound one.

Secondly, it's highly unlikely that running the marathon in Beijing would affect his health in the long term. What it might do (and we'll get to this later) is affect his performance in the short term! That is, he might not have a very good race, perhaps, and worst case scenario, he'd be forced to bail from the race with breathing difficulties. But to suggest that his marathon running future is at stake is a little extreme.

Third, the pollution in Beijing is something of an unknown quantity, in that no one can say with any certainty how it will affect performances. To make a decision like this, fully 5 months out from the Olympics, seems to be jumping the gun a little. However, since we only know what is reported in the media, any speculation as to the process he followed (that is, consulting experts, visiting and trying to run in Beijing etc.) would be pretty wild. So instead of speculating wildly, I thought it better to dig up some information on the Beijing Marathon and see if it might be a guide as to what we could expect.

Performances in the Beijing Marathon - are they a guide to what we can expect?

This morning, I received an email from Amby Burfoot, providing a link to a really great site for statistics and marathon information.

The site has records on the Beijing Marathon, which is run every year in October. Some of these statistics are shown in the table below:


So, of interest is that despite not attracting a world class field of sub-2:07 men and 2:22 women, the times in Beijing (in October, at least) are quite decent - a 2:11:00 seems pedestrian compared to what we've seen in recent times in London, Berlin and Chicago, but it's by no means a disaster, particularly considering the relative weakness of the field. The worst performances in the last 12 years, incidentally, are more likely due to weak fields than any weather conditions, because in 2000, when the men were particularly slow, the women's winning time was 2:26, which is reasonable, and close to the overall average. Similarly, in 2006, when the women were slow, the men's race was won in 2:10:36, suggesting that conditions were not too hostile for fast times.

Speaking of conditions, what do we expect of Beijing?

Admittedly, the weather in October changes between August, when the Olympic Marathon takes place, and mid-October, when the Beijing Marathon is run. The weather stats are shown below:

The change in minimum temperature is particularly marked, I was surprised at how large it was. That 13 degree difference would of course have a profound effect on performances. Similarly, the change in relative humidity is significant. So the environmental conditions, it would seem, are a very real factor. But then we've known that all along, and it's going to be no hotter in Beijing than it was in Osaka last year for the World Championships, where times were slower, but it certainly was not impossible to run. And then of course, this is an issue mainly about pollution, not heat. The above racing performances seem to suggest that the pollution in Beijing is not so bad that it slows athletes down profoundly. Then again, one might argue that these athletes don't have asthma, as Gebrselassie apparently does...

The comparison between the Beijing Marathon and the Olympic Marathon therefore probably leaves us with more questions than answers! The two big unknowns, of course, are:

1. What is the pollution level in August compared to October?
2. How much does pollution, heat and humidity affect the very best elite athletes?

If anyone out there has access to pollution statistics in Beijing, please let us know! It would be interesting, as one commenter noted in the previous post, to compare London to Beijing. Again, this would serve only to provide some level of numerical comparison, just as the comparision between October and August does, because to actually predict performance implications based on this is not quite as simple as one might have hoped!

I'm sure there's a lot left in this story, and certainly in the pollution in Beijing story. We'll follow its developments!

Ross

Gebrselassie out of the Olympics

Haile Gebrselassie OUT of the Beijing Olympics - the air pollution is a "threat" to his health

Dramatic news being reported today by news sources is that Haile Gebrselassie, Ethiopia’s marathon world record holder and multiple world and Olympic champion has withdrawn from the Olympic Marathon in Beijing, citing concerns over the air pollution as the reason!

Gebrselassie had previously mentioned the possibility that he might not run in Beijing, but today’s news represents a definitive ("99% sure", apparently) decision. Gebrselassie is quoted as saying the following:

"The pollution in China is a threat to my health and it would be difficult for me to run 42km in my current condition,"

“My current condition”, incidentally, refers to Gebrselassie’s asthma, which he says forced him out of the London Marathon in 2007.

How bad is Beijing? And is this a justified decision?

It is a radical decision to take, particularly with all of 150 days to go before the Olympic Games. Yes, there are concerns over the pollution, and yes, it's likely that conditions will be difficult in Beijing, heat and humidity adding to the problems. We won't go into huge detail on air pollution and exercise performance now, since we've looked at the pollution situation in Beijing in two previous posts.

First, we discussed the likely problems the athletes will encounter in Beijing, and how some nations are planning to send athletes to locations OUTSIDE Beijing to avoid the pollution. That was amidst claims and promises that Beijing was doing all it could to improve the pollution situation.

However, a few months later, it was being reported that the air pollution situation in Beijing was actually getting worse, with many of the promises about cleaning the air (including the closure of factories in Beijing) being forgotten or ignored in the face of economic pressure to keep factories open. It has been a problem that has plagued the build-up to Beijing since last year, and this is the most dramatic story arising out of the pollution controversy so far.

A premature decision?

But rather than make this decision now, why not wait out the next three or four months and see how things develop? Consult with an expert or two (because this is an issue where you'd get a sixth and seventh opinion IF you really wanted it) on asthma. Find experts on pollution, as Paula Radcliffe did, and see whether there is a contingency plan that might allow you to run and challenge for what is really the only major title or accolade you're still missing?

The British Olympic team even announced that they would provide masks to their help their athletes breathe more easily if required. Perhaps Gebrselassie has done all this, and the advice he received is that there is no way he'll be able to run in Beijing. It's still almost unbelievable that he wouldn't wait out a month or two before announcing a decision that, in the words of his manager Jos Hermens, is "99% sure".

For the reality is that Gebrselassie has achieved pretty much all he can in international running, apart from winning the Olympic Gold in the marathon. It's a goal he himself has expressed on many occasions and it really does seem peculiar to me that he could so easily let go of the goal.

Instead, his manager Hermens is quoted as saying:

"He doesn't want to put his career in danger and he still wants to run at the 2012 Olympics in London. His dream is to run in two hours and three minutes and to be the first to do that. It's more important for him than to win another gold medal."

The pollution - an unknown quantity

Quite what the long term implication for his health is is difficult to know - certainly, his career would hardly seem in danger if he raced in Beijing. His marathon race, yes, but to suggest that his long term health would be affected is a little extreme. The worst that would happen would be that he could not breathe, and so he'd stop and pull out of the race within the first 10km, and live to fight another day - there's no reason to believe that his 2012 race is at stake thanks to the Beijing air of 2008.

Then again, I'm not sure that elite athletes have ever been exposed to the kind of pollution they'll encounter in Beijing, so the Olympics will be interesting simply from that point of view. Perhaps Gebrselassie tried to jog on a recent trip to Beijing, and found that he simply could not breathe - his mind may have been made up by his lungs!

However, it would seem to be a question of priorities, which is a deviation from the usual line given by athletes (including Gebrselassie) that the medals are more important than the records. Of course, it's Gebrselassie's choice, and good luck to him going for that 2:03 marathon (that is another issue altogether - we've discussed the chances of a 2:03 before). But it certainly is a shame, and hopefully, that 1% chance will still come into play and we'll see Gebrselassie on the roads, rather than the track, in Beijing.

If not, then it's the 10,000m event, as Gebrselassie has announced his intention is to qualify for Ethiopia's team for the 10,000m race in Beijing. This might be part of the reason for such an early announcement - perhaps he felt he needed to make the decision this early to allow him to adjust the training leading into the European summer. However, even that doesn't quite ring true, and I can't help but wonder whether the decision is really as simple as saying that he has other goals, and he is concerned over his health...is there any chance that in two months' time, Gebrselassie will announce that he's changed his mind and WILL in fact run the marathon in Beijing? It would not be the first time that he'd announced his "absence" from a major championships, only to be "persuaded" to go after all...

Suspicions and questions - a valid reason?

Such is the climate around international sport these days, that there is already lively debate and cynicism about the given reason. Does Gebrselassie really have asthma? Or is this an excuse not to be tested by drug control authorities? The problem with that "conspiracy theory" is that Gebrselassie has announced that he'll try to run the 10,000m race in Beijing instead, where he'd be tested anyway. So scratch that theory off the list.

There's actually a great deal of controversy around the drug testing issue and asthmatics, incidentally - for example, if you take an average sample of people and compare it to a sample of Olympic athletes, you find that often, the Olympic group will have a much higher incidence of "asthmatics" - if , that is, you choose to believe all the medical clearances that are issued giving them exemption to use inhalers (which are otherwise banned). But again, the fact that Gebrselassie is not pulling out of the Olympics, but just the Marathon, would suggest that the drug theory is slightly misplaced, on this occasion anyway.

The Olympic Marathon without Gebrselassie

As for where this leaves the marathon, well, it's dramatically weakened by his absence. His anticipated race against the Kenyans, whoever they chose, was due to be a real highlight of the Beijing Games. The marathon will be somewhat lacking its lustre if indeed he doesn't change his mind. So a real shame for the Olympic Games, and let's hope that it's a premature decision and that he announces that he will, after all, take his place in the race come August.

Ross

Related articles

Air Pollution in Beijing: Symptoms and issues facing athletes in Beijing

Olympic events in danger: Athletes will need masks in Beijing

Ryan Shay Autopsy

Ryan Shay Autopsy: Why the delay?

In the last 4 months, everyone has waited patiently for the autopsy results of US runner Ryan Shay to be released. It was in November last year, during the US Men's Olympic Trials, that Shay collapsed at the 10km mark in Central Park, New York. He was later pronounced dead, and the story shocked the athletics world.

We have now reached March, and still no final report on the cause of death or the results from the autopsy which is performed on all sudden deaths in apparently healthy people. For example, earlier this year, actor Heath Ledger died in mysterious circumstances and an autospy report was released only two weeks later.

So not surprisingly, the voice of those who wanted to know some answers was growing steadily louder or discontented. Apparently, the Medical Director of the race was receiving 25 calls a day from various people. Even here on this site, we've received a number of questions from people asking whether we knew - of course, we are as much in the dark as anyone else. But now, it seems there may be some answers...

Runners World finds some answers

On Thursday this week, Amby Burfoot wrote an article which you can read here, detailing some of the progress made so far.

According to the article (summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing), the Medical Examiner's Office refuses to comment on any case, which is understandable, if not doubly frustrating for those wanting to know. The official word out of the Medical Examiner's office is:

"Every case is individual, and we have to do a complete job on every case that we do. We do the testing that we need until we're satisfied that we can determine the cause of death."

Apparently the four month wait for the report is not completely exceptional - it usually gets released far sooner, but four months still falls inside what the Office considers an acceptable time frame. Final testing is apparently now taking place, and according to the spokesperson, "It should be very soon now."

So within the next week or two, perhaps, we'll have some conclusive (hopefully) answers as to what would cause an apparently healthy and very fit 27 year old to collapse and die during an activity he did just about every day.

But there are some answers, provided by Ryan Shay's father, Joe. In a telephone conversation with Runners World, Shay revealed that:

A toxicology report had been conducted on the supplements Shay was using - he was sponsored by the company EAS, and so any possible contamination was investigated. Apparently, Joe Shay requested that the toxicology report be released before the rest of the results, but the Medical Examiner's Office refused, as policy is to release the report in its entireity. The toxicology report became the focus of attention because at the time, many people wondered whether drug use might have been responsible for Shay's death.

A second part of the investigation was done on tissue samples which were genetically examined. Shay's family specifically requested this to make sure that no other family members were in any danger of a similar cardiac event. Joe Shay revealed to Runners World that this testing showed that Shay DID NOT have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which was a widely reported candidate for the cause of death (including here).

So one possible cause has been eliminated, the others remain possibilities. The signs are encouraging that within two weeks, a report will be released, which will hopefully provide some answers. If and when that report is released, we'll do our best to bring to you.

Ross

Sports news interlude

Some news snippets ahead of the weekend

We're taking a break from the series on running shoes today, to look at some sports news that came across the wires in the last couple of days. I'll tackle another post on running shoes over the weekend when there is a little more time to get through some biomechanics articles on the subject - the thing about shoes that it takes you into the field of biomechanics of running, which is highly specialised and vast, so I would want to do justice to the studies.

But for today, some sports news from the last few days, starting with the latest installment in the Oscar Pistorius case.

Oscar Pistorius announces that his own research suggests he has no advantage, and the IAAF were wrong

Well, this is hardly surprising, of course - Oscar Pistorius yesterday announced that he has conducted his own studies in Texas, and they have contradicted many of the results from the IAAF testing performed in Cologne, Germany, last year.

Regular readers will know my take on the situation, and this is simply the latest act in a saga that threatens to be drawn out well beyond Beijing. The IAAF, for their part, have dismissed the research, which is understandable, given that Pistorius and his team went off and had it done all by themselves.

Remember, when Pistorius was tested in Germany last year, he and his team were given opportunities to discuss and consult with the IAAF on the tests. That is, they had input and opportunity to help design the studies, and were of course on-hand when the testing was done, to ensure that it was being done fairly. Pistorius was allowed by the IAAF to have representation in whichever form he chose - lawyers, scientists, podiatrists, coach, family - whatever he wished.

That is the reason why, when the IAAF announced that the testing had found large advantages (25 to 30% for mechanical and energy efficiency), it was strange that Pistorius questioned the completeness and validity of the research. This reaction was tantamount to an admission that his own team had failed to contribute to the research, since they had opportunities to ensure its validity before and while it was conducted.

So now, Pistorius has gone off to an unnamed lab in Texas and done his own work. Work he paid for, consulted on, designed, and was involved in. Not a single IAAF official was present, the IAAF was not consulted in any way, and had no opportunity to view the testing while it took place. The IAAF have therefore dismissed the test result - it is the equivalent of a court case in which the "defendant" is not even invited to the trial.

So what did they find?

I would love to be able to give you a critical analysis of the Pistorius testing, but unfortunately, that is not possible, since Pistorius and his lawyer have refused to say who did the testing, what it consisted of, and what it showed. This is however understandable - one would hardly expect him to reveal the results in the media while a case looms on the horizon. As one reader commented this morning:

"Oscar is playing high stakes poker with the IAAF and the Court for Arbitration in Sport. He and his team would be foolish to show their hand at this point..."

I agree with that, but then it's odd that he chose to announce the test result at all - the great paradox here is that he chose to release a provocative press release. Clearly, the comparison with poker is a good one, because Pistorius may be playing a great game of deception in the media. I don't see that the IAAF are playing the same game - they have flat out dismissed the research, no case of bluff and double-bluff there. Does he have proof? Who knows? Does the result show anything conclusive? Your guess is as good as mine!

One thing I will say is that we have always been big on conflicts of interest here on this website. And I cannot think of a bigger conflict of interests than when you pay for your own research, with the specific intention of proving other work wrong in order to retain a spotlight that must be providing financial rewards. Think for a second about what possible conclusion they could draw - that the blades do in fact give an advantage, and the IAAF were correct?

Can you imagine the headlines: "Pistorius commisions his own tests confirming his advantage over able-bodied athletes", or "Blade runner performs his own research, finds an advantage". Well, of course not - that's a headline that will not seem out of place in a few weeks on April 1! The reality is that Pistorius cannot say anything but that his research proves the IAAF wrong - his entire campaign, and all the spinoffs, depend on it. Similarly, the IAAF cannot at this point apologize for their science being "wrong" and welcome Pistorius into the sport! So we have an impasse, but the circumstances of this latest "research" are so dubious, so suspect, that I find it inconceivable that he would be so presumptious as to even make the claims he has.

What I would love, however, is to see what the "evidence" is. It struck me yesterday that to date, the science of the issue has never been debated - it's been science vs. marketing, no dialogue, only monologues. We've tried to cover the story here, and evaluate the science, and we've received a few emails from people who have blasted it and claimed that it's unfair and untrue. Yet no one has actually presented the counter-argument, either in terms of theory or research results. To date, the rhetoric has been abundant - claims and promises and threats, but nothing concrete. Perhaps Pistorius now has this concrete result, but I'd love to hear how he is going to cancel out a 30% advantage found by the IAAF.

The other thing that is strange is that this testing was done in Texas a month ago - I know for a fact that three weeks ago, Pistorius was investigating the prospect of actually doing the testing here in South Africa. He wanted to have his scientific case prepared from here - so that seems peculiar given that two weeks before this, he had this "exciting" result from Texas. If this is a game of poker, then either someone is bluffing, or perhaps simply ignorant of the science. I've seen little science in the last year, apart from a claim that the human tendon returns 240% of the energy it stores! That "science" was laughable, but perhaps the latest installment will be similar?

Time will tell how this all transpires, and just what testing was done in Texas. To take on the very best scientist in this field in the world (Prof Bruggemann), and the best research facility for this purpose in the world (Cologne), that research must be spectacular.

The IAAF World Indoor Championships

The big sporting event (from a running point of view) this weekend is the IAAF World Indoor Championships from Spain. It's the culmination of the indoor season, and some big names are taking part.

For two informative articles on the weekend, and who to watch, check out the following two articles:

Guide to men's events in Valencia (they don't have a women's guide, unfortunately)
Steve Cram picks his 10 to watch (a bit biased towards British athletes)

If I had to pick two big events to watch, they would be:

• Dwain Chambers in the 60m sprint - only because this is a story we featured here in the last few weeks, and for all the wrong reasons - Chambers is returning to international competition following a break, which followed a forced break caused by his drugs ban. There was huge controversy as to whether he should even be picked for the squad, and he now takes on what is a relatively thin field. If he wins, the story will gather momentum and the headache for the British Athletics (and the world's) fraternity will increase - the spotlight on drugs in sport will only be intensified. Apparently, Chambers is hoping that a medal will help him re-integrate into the sport. Fact is, it's likely to fragment it even further...
  
• Men's 60m hurdles, where the new sensation Dayron Robles will have his first chance to turn up the heat on Liu Xiang ahead of the Beijing Olympics. Robles has been in great form this year, while Liu has hardly raced, so this is the ideal opportunity for Robles to make a statement on what is possibly the most unequal playing field he'll encounter this year. Liu is going to go through 2008 under the most intense pressure perhaps ever placed on an athlete, because he is the face of the Beijing Olympics, and once in Beijing, he'll be carrying the hopes of billions. He's withstood it so far, but Robles can add to it in this race

But, there are some great races in the middle distance events too - the men's 800 and 1500m races, and then Craig Mottram races in the 3000m in a field that's missing Kenenisa Bekele, so he's a good bet for a title there. And in the women, the farewell season of Maria Mutola begins as she runs in the 800m.

Paula Radcliffe to miss London Marathon with injury

Bad news for Paula Radcliffe as she builds up to the Beijing Olympics and the elusive gold medal - she has injured her toe and will not race in London.

The Radcliffe camp are downplaying the significance of the injury, and the reports are that she probably could have raced in London, but would have been below her best, so the wise approach is to rather focus on training for Beijing.

Fortunately, we're far enough away from Beijing that this kind of injury doesn't threaten her big season goal, but it does affect her racing schedule - Radcliffe has always been an athlete who races well and regularly, and of course, given the long layoff she had before New York last year, a few races will be an important part of her Beijing build-up.

However, perhaps this incident will be beneficial - she may now end up racing more at the shorter half-marathon distance, which might ultimately prove to be an advantage, if she can go into Beijing with a little more speed and racing experience in what are likely to be tighter races.

All in all, disappointing for London, but Radcliffe remains on course for Beijing. Time will tell, once again!

She could always try barefoot running - maybe it was her shoes that hurt her big toe!

Join us soon for the third part of the running shoe trilogy!

Have a great weekend!
Ross

Topical sports science and analysis

Here at the Science of Sport, our objective is to give the second, third and fourth level of insight into sports news. So having learned WHAT happened in your local paper or on the television, our goal is to tell you WHY and HOW it happened.

So below is a list of some of the topical sports stories we've covered here in The Science of Sport. Each one is a link, so click to be directed to the article:

• Ed Coyle and Lance Armstrong: The scientific "fraud"
  

1. Introduction: What Coyle found, and why it was challenged as false
2. The "minor miscalculation" - Coyle's error is revealed by fellow scientists
3. Fact and philosophy - Coyle's arrogant response to the challenge
   

• Oscar Pistorius articles AFTER the CAS verdict: Evaluating the "science"

1. The CAS verdict. Pistorius is cleared, and Pandora's box is opened
2. The implications of the CAS verdict: Running community opinions
3. The Law vs. Science: How marketing won the day in the courtroom
4. Exposing some of the lies and myths of Oscar Pistorius
5. The remarkable physiology of Oscar Pistorius
   

• Oscar Pistorius - should he be allowed to run?

1. Open letter to the IAAF - the start of the debate
2. Science and Engineering in Pistorius - full discussion of the theory why Pistorius has an advantage
3. Analysis of Pistorius' debut 400m race in Europe - evidence of an advantage
4. Preliminary reports from IAAF suggest that Pistorius will be BANNED
5. Scientific analysis and interpretation of the IAAF test result - Pistorius is banned with a large advantage
6. Pistorius will challenge the ban - but on what grounds?
7. Pistorius continues to provide no scientific support - the latest round of weak science and why science does not matter to Oscar Pistorius
8. Oscar Pistorius announces that he has conducted his own tests to prove he has no advantage
9. Science for sale: The incentive clash between Oscar Pistorius and the IAAF

• The swimsuit revolution: High-tech doping or necessary evolution?
  
1. The Speedo LZR Racer: Introduction and debate: Does Speedo's "supersuit" make world records irrelevant? The line between "tech-doping" and innovation.
2. Speedo's LZR: The role of swimming technique in progress - the suit or the style?
3. The swimsuit wars begin: Arena enters the fray, and what goes into suit design
4. Adidas launches its swimsuit: Are we watching swimmers or "human-powered boats"?
5. Arena attack Speedo: Arena seeks to have the Speedo LZR Racer banned
6. Arena's threat of legal action: Suddenly the integrity of the sport is at stake
7. World records disappear by EIGHT seconds: The swimming crisis

• IAAF world Championships in Osaka, 2007

• Women's 10000m final and men's marathon analysis
• Men's 100m final - Gay beats a choking Powell
• Men's 10000m final with Bekele claiming 3rd title
• Men's 1500m final - Lagat claims first of his two golds
• Men's 5000m and 800m finals - Lagat doubles, and Yego sneaks the win in the 800m
  

• Preview of 2008

• Look ahead to sport in 2008, including:
• The Olympic Games of 2008
• The future of the marathon event
• Cycling in 2008 - can it remain dope-free?
  

• Review of 2007
• A look back at some highlights of 2007, including:
• Highs and lows - sudden death of athletes and great victories
• Performance of the year
• Athlete of the year
• Choker of the year
• Undo a lifetime of achievement award
• Losing sleep over the future award

As more stories hit the news, we'll do our best to cover them, and post those links right here!