London 2012: Men's 100m...It's Bolt!

Usain Bolt defends - 9.63s beats Blake into second

It's been a long day, with a fast finish in the form of Usain Bolt defending his 100m title in emphatic fashion, in a time of 9.63s, ahead of Yohan Blake (9.75s) and Justin Gatlin (9.79s)  A full recap tomorrow, but here are three very quick (Bolt-like) thoughts on the men's 100m:

1) Bolt second half was dominant

I hope someone will produce a statistical analysis of the race, with 10m interval speeds, as was done for the 2009 WR, because the structure of Bolt's race would make a fascinating comparison.  He was trailing over the first 30m in London, and so I'd love to compare this Olympic race to that WR from 40m onwards.  Was his first phase tonight slower than 2009, or were Gatlin and Blake better than the 2009 field?  Remember, when he set the WR in Berlin, Bolt actually reached 20m first! His start and drive phase were pretty good then.

Tonight, he was behind, but good enough to put himself in a position to capitalize, which he did emphatically.  His reaction time, incidentally (since I know this will come up) was 0.165s, which was faster than both Blake (0.179s) and Gatlin (0.178s).  But this is only a small part of the start - how you react is followed by how you drive from the blocks, and that's where Bolt has been found out before - he needs to get those long legs out of the way first.

Once that happens, he's unmatchable.  There was a moment tonight where Gatlin was holding Bolt off, but from that crucial 50 m mark, where most men begin to hit top speed before slowing down, Bolt just has so much more than everyone else.  He moved past Gatlin and Blake so powerfully, and those numbers would be very interesting to see.  Top speed and best 10m interval comparisons would be revealing.

Missing the world record by 0.05s suggests that it might not have been quite up to the top-end speeds we saw in 2009, but if the start was worse, it'll be close.  I'll look out for the numbers and report on them if I find them.  And obviously, if you have them, do let me know!

2) I'm surprised at the margin of victory

0.12s is a big win in a final that was so split before it happened - look at the spread on predictions, it was so evenly divided between Bolt and Blake that a win that size surprised me.  In Beijing, the margin was larger, of course, but Blake threatened to make this closer than it ultimately was.  Blake's 9.75s matched his performance from the Jamaican trials, and with the peak of the Olympic Games, plus all the talk of a fast track, plus the fact that the wind was a pretty decent 1.5  m/s tailwind, he might have expected to go a little faster than he did then.  Admittedly, it was cooler, which is not ideal for fast times, but I'm surprised Blake didn't go a little closer.

Nevertheless, he confirmed his standing as the challenger to Bolt, and the 200m event later this week should be another fabulous race.

3) A world record would have been a huge surprise

If you think about it, we hadn't seen a sub-9.70s clocking since 2009 and the Bolt world record in Berlin.  Prior to 2008, the best performances were in the mid-9.70s, and occasionally, a performance in the low 9.70s would light up the world of track and field.  When it did, it was usually a world record, like Powell's 9.74s, or Bolt's 9.72s in 2008.

Then came Beijing - 9.69s with a celebration.  Then followed Berlin - 9.58s.  We were taken into an era where track fans were eagerly looking forward to the fall of the 9.50s barrier.  Then, almost as quickly as it arrived, that era seemed to depart.  Since then, 9.75s has been the standard once again, and the world leader is a low 9.7-something.

And so going into these Olympic Games, the prospect of jumping from 9.75s all the way to a sub-9.60s was just beyond belief.  No track surface or reasonable following wind was going to allow it.  The times this year, from the big four (Gay included in the list) have frequently been around 9.80s, but never faster than the 9.72s that Bolt carried into Beijing four years ago.

Therefore, it seemed reasonable to assume that even if Bolt (or someone else) peaked for the Games, and produced the same kind of spectacular performance we saw in Beijing, he'd run somewhere in the mid-9.6s.  That Beijing performance, incidentally, was slowed by his celebrations, but we worked out at the time that he probably would have run around 9.64s - 9.65s had he not begun his dance while at the 80m mark of the race.

That was the basis for my prediction of a 9.68s winning time ahead of tonight's final (over on Twitter).  I didn't think Bolt would quite be in his Beijing form, which would have put him at 9.61 to 9.65s.  As it turned out, he was, and ran 9.63s.  But a prediction of 9.5-something, or even faster than that, was the result of being "spoiled" by 2008 and 2009 - we are back on the constant improvement curve now, and this performance is probably exactly where the "normal" would be.  Not that anything about Bolt is normal, of course!

Full recap of day's events tomorrow

I'll do a proper recap tomorrow, including some talk of the women's 400m, the men's steeplechase, and whatever other random thoughts enter my mind overnight!  Right now, I'm Olympics-ed out!

Ross

P.S.   Another stat that always seems to come up is number of steps taken.  I'm not sure you can read too much into this, because you need to know contact times, contact lengths, and force applied to the ground, but here are the numbers for those who are interested:


Bolt - took 41 steps 
Blake - took 46 steps
Gatlin - took 42.5 steps


All that really means is that Bolt has longer strides.  Looking at the height of the three men, you'd have predicted this, but people enjoy that stat!

London Women's Marathon

Women's Olympic Marathon: Live splits and comments

Welcome to live splits and coverage of the Women's Olympic Marathon from London.  I'll be updating the splits every 5km, and adding a few comments as the race unfolds

Splits and projected times

5km - 17:20. Projects a 2:26:17
10km - 34:46 (17:26).  Projects 2:26:42
15 km - 52:10 (17:24)
20km - 69:26 (17:16)
Halfway - 1:13:13
25km - 1:26:23 (16:57), projecting a 2:25:48
30km - 1:42:44 (16:21), now projecting a 2:24:30, but with this pace, the Olympic record is under threat
35km - 1:59:29 (16:45)
40km - 2:16:10 (16:41)
Finish - 2:23:07 (final 2.2km in 6:57, and a second half of 69:54)

Race report

Finish

Tiki Gelana of Ethiopia has won the Women's Marathon - it's a significant victory, and it comes as something of a surprise given the credentials of Keitany and Kiplagat.  Not that Gelana was an outsider - her PB is 2:18:58, and she won the Rotterdam Marathon earlier this year, so a highly pedigreed athlete.

Her winning time was 2:23:07, and a new Olympic record.  The race was a big negative split, after a cautious first half.  The pace, as expected, was ramped up by the Kenyans soon after halfway, and they put in a 16:21 5km segment from 25km to 30km.  That pulled a group of six away - three Kenyan and three Ethiopians, much as most would have predicted.  However, Russia's Arkhipova defied that script, and reeled the leaders back, and one by one, the east Africans began to fall off.

The 5km from 35 to 40km was run in 16:41 (3:20/km), and by then it was down to four, as Kiplagat had surprisingly been dropped early, and the Ethiopian challenge had been reduced to one.

The final 2.2km were run in 6:57 (3:10/km), and that gave Gelana the record and the win, as she was able to surge to gap a group of four, including pre-race favorite Keitany, Jeptoo and surprise Russian Arkhipova.  The other huge surprise was that neither Keitany, the London champion earlier this year, or world champion Edna Kiplagat, were able to medal.

So that's two women's distance races, and two Ethiopian gold medals.  First Dibaba beat Kenya's best in the women's 10,000m, and now Gelana has "stolen" the Olympic gold from the favoured Kenyans.  Add to this the Kenyan men failing to medal in the men's 10,000m, and the Kenyan hopes for London are being rapidly revised.  Their next chance to get on the board comes in the men's steeplechase later, where surely they'll win their first gold.

But for now, it's an Ethiopian celebration for Gelana.  She was the last surviving Ethiopian, with three Kenyans, but came through in the end.

The race was, also unsurprisingly, a massive negative split - halfway was hit in 1:13:13, which means the second half was run in 69:54. I must confess that I'm a little surprised that this was good enough to win - don't get me wrong, it's incredible running, but when you think of Keitany's London win earlier this year, she ran a 67:43 off a faster first half than today (70:53).

That is perhaps testament to the course, with its twists and turns, which were arguably made even more challenging by the conditions - it was wet at the start, and poured heavily in patches.  It may force a rethink about the men's race, because this kind of course may be ripe for surprise, and while Gelana was not exactly a long shot to win, as I mentioned earlier, few would have expected neither Keitany nor Kiplagat to win a medal.

As it unfolded

41km

Keitany is dropped!  The pre-race favourite is in trouble, and is gapped, and there will be no coming back from this - too quick now and that is too big a drop-off for her.  It's Gelana doing the work now, capitalizing on that surprise.  Jeptoo is also being gapped and it's going to be an Ethiopian gold if this keeps up!

It's four women for three medals, and only 1.5km to sort them out in.  No one making the decisive move, and so this may boil down to a final 1km, like a track race.  Will Arkhipova (or Petrova, for those with confusion) manage to disrupt an African podium?  It'll be an amazing effort if she can.

40km

Last five kilometers were done in 16:41, which is fast.  But here again, that doesn't tell the story of the fast-slow tactics being employed.  Arkhipova has been a good indication that those 16:41 have not been even-paced, which makes them even more impressive.  There were some undulations in that section, however, and they may also explain some variability in pace.

39km

Arkhipova is being stretched here, every time there is a surge, she's off the back.  She's fighting for all she's worth, but the signs are there that when the big, final push comes, she'll find herself in the fourth position.

It's the east Africans who are being aggressive again, with only 3 km to run.

38km

With four in the lead group (Keitany and Jeptoo for Kenya, Gelana for Ethiopia, and Arkhipova for Russia), the final 5km holds some serious questions.  The pace, for these women, has not been quick, so there should be surge and countersurge for the next 15 minutes.

Keitany to the front again, but it's not for a decisive increase in the pace.  So far, everything has seemed rather subtle.  It's been enough to crack those who are weak, but there's no indication, yet, of which of these four is on the limit.

I'm surprised the Kenyans have allowed the race to fall back into this kind of pace (17:15 per 5km).  It only allows runners in, and they have such superiority in terms of performance ceiling.  Then again, this is the Olympic marathon, and with much at stake, perhaps the caution is understandable.  But there's no question that when you are a 2:19 runner, as they are, then running 2:24 creates an "unpredictable" race, and that leaves a door open.

35km

Last five kilometers in 16:45, so it has slowed ever so slightly, and that explains why Arkhipova got back to the group.  Interestingly, at 35km, the Russian went to the front, and Kenya was slow to respond!  Gelana made the first move along with the Russian, and so that is interesting.

The slow pace from 30 to 35km may have moved the Olympic record beyond reach, because they're now projecting 2:24:03, which means the 2:23:14 from Sydney may just survive.

Kiplagat seems to have been dropped now, and the only way she gets back is a drop in pace.  With 7km to go, that seems unlikely, and the Kenyan sweep is no longer on.

34km

The group is now five, the small gaps to Kiplagat and Arkhipova have disappeared and so we once again have five.  The mile-by-mile splits would be fascinating, because I suspect the leaders are going fast-slow-fast-slow, rather than it being a case of digging in and returning to the pace of the front-runners for the Russian and Kiplagat.

33km

The pace seems to have been lifted again.  The stimulus for that may have been the arrival of Arkhipova, because no sooner had she joined and Kiplagat was dropped, and now the gap is just starting to appear to Arkhipova.  The medalists may be taking shape, because if these two can't pull through this phase, then it's down to three - Keitany, Jeptoo and Gelana.

And a Kenyan is off, and it's Kiplagat!  That's a surprise as well, because she pressed Keitany in London earlier this year.  Now it's Keitany and Jeptoo, and the possibility of a Kenyan sweep seems gone, unless she can somehow recover.  The elastic is stretching, but not broken just yet.

32km


Now Dibaba of Ethiopia has also dropped off, and so it's three Kenyans against a sole-surviving Ethiopian challenge.  That comes from Tiki Gelana, who now faces Jeptoo, Keitany and Kiplagat.

And Arkhipova has closed the gap to the leaders, and so now the lead group is back up to five.  It dropped to four, but it was effectively a substitution - Dibaba is out, Arkhiopova is in.


31km

Keitany is pressing the pace, she is at the front and has been for the last 5km, and so is feeling confident enough to lead.  Nothing dramatic, if you don't count a 16:21 5km split as not being too dramatic!

Of the chasers, Flanagan is 17 seconds back and hoping for a blow from three or four women in front.  Arkhipova is also in front of Flanagan, and so she represents the first non-African threat to the medals.

30km

30km is reached in 1:42:44, so the last 5km were done in 16:21, and that's been the source of the damage.  That's a pretty significant increase in pace compared to the first half (3:16/km compared to 3:27/km), but it only tells part of the story - the surges are doing more damage, and it's the reason we're seeing three Kenyans against two Ethiopians for the final 10km.  This is the section of the race that Keitany covered in 31:53 when winning London earlier this year.  Again, that was a different course, with fewer twists and no water, but the question is whether she has that in her again.  Or possibly even more, given the slower pace to date.

28km

Now Zhou of China is also just dropping off slightly, and so it's five again.  That's a function of a slight increase in the pace at 27km, and we'll see how the 30km split reflects that.

No single person is assuming the leadership of the race, but it's Kenya at the front.  Side by side, the three Kenyans are pressing now, and the race is becoming just what everyone thought it would be - a direct clash between the Kenyans and Ethiopians.  So far, this marathon has had so much more tactical intrigue than the 10,000m race last night.

27km

One of the Ethiopians has dropped off - Mergia, who won the Dubai Marathon has lost about five seconds to the lead group.  That group now has three Kenyan, two Ethiopian, one American (Flanagan) and one Chinese women in it.  Flanagan is being stretched by the pace though, a gap just starting to appear.

25km

The last five kilometers were done in 16:57.  That's not breathtaking, but most of it was in the last two kilometers.  That was when first Keitany eased the pace up, and then Kiplagat surged, and the result is that split.  Goucher, Flanagan, the Chinese, Mikitenko are all off the back, but they may be able to claw back if the pace slows. But I'm expecting more of the same in the not too distance future.  The non-Africans will actually provide a nice barometer of the pace - if they drop, it's been ramped up again.  Look for the splits to get faster and faster now.

Now the big move, by Edna Kiplagat and within one kilometer, it has become an African race and a "rest of the world race".  The lead group has gone from 12 to 6, and not surprisingly, it is made up of three Kenyans and three Ethiopians.  Here comes the race!

The front group is now being headed by Mary Keitany, the champion in London earlier this year, and so perhaps the race is now about to become an African affair.  The lead group is thinning, but still large, with about 12 runners in it at 25km.

Some real race developments since halfway.  Biggest of all is that Shobhukova has stopped, clutching her right hamstring, and so an injury presumably explains her poor showing.

Keitany must be an enormous favourite here - apart from that second half of 67:43 in London this year, she covered the final 10km in an astonishing 31:53.  You can see those splits here

Halfway

The most interesting development so far is that Lilya Shobhukhova is off the front group - she is 16 seconds down at half way.  There are 22 in the lead group, but she is not one of them, and that is a big development!

The split at halfway is 73:13, so it's on for a mid-2:26, but the pace may ramp big time from here on in.  Interesting stat - when winning the London Marathon earlier this year, Mary Keitany ran the second half in 67:43, and that was off a 70:53 first half.  Today, the first half is over 3 minutes slower, and so that gives an indication of what Keitany can do in the event.  If she produces anything like that speed, nobody in this race will match her.  The question is whether she can do it on the different course, in the wet?

20km

Still no action, other than the teams working together to get water, and the dropouts.  The latest to step off the road is van Blerk of South Africa at about 18km.

The group is thinning, but only very, very slightly, as the 2:30 runners begin to drop off the 2:27 pace.  It has been an incredibly consistent pace - 3:27 to 3:29 for every 5km interval so far.

15km

Not much change, literally.  In fact, the pace has been almost identical the whole way.  The first 5 were 17:20, then 17:26 and now 17:24.  So nothing to speak of yet.  The rain has relented, leaving only wet roads to contend with.

First 10km

At 10km, the lead group is still large, about 20 women, but there's still no real split in the race.  All the big names are there - three Kenyans, three Ethiopians, Shobukhova and the two American's featuring prominently at the front.

The slow early pace is no surprise - unpaced marathons rarely go out hard, and with the stakes as they are, and the field as deep as it is, expect a cautious game until just after halfway.  It is not inconceivable that the second half might be in the range of 68 minutes, depending when the attacks come, because the first looks likely to be in 73 min.

The biggest factor so far has been the weather - it has been wet since the start, with period around 5km where it poured down.  Women were jumping puddles.

The Kenyans are known to dislike running in the rain more than most, and so this may well prove to be an equalizer of sorts.  We'll know after halfway, as that's where the increase in tempo is likely to happen, at least based on Keitany's marathon past.

The other news is that of a few significant drop-outs.  Mara Yamauchi of GB pulled out with what appeared to be a leg injury, and the USA's Desi Davila pulled out even earlier, having carried a hip injury into the race.

London 2012: Day 8 recap

London 2012 Day 8 recap: Great Great Britain, Men's 10,000m and the fastest woman in the world

Five very quick thoughts after an amazing Olympic Day...

1) Great Great Britain

What a day for the hosts. In track & field, they got three golds in an amazing hour, first with Ennis, then Rutherford in the long jump, and then Farah in the 10,000m.  That followed two gold medals in the morning's rowing and another track cycling gold medal, and Great Britain was in a frenzy by the time Farah kicked to gold.  They lost a penalty shootout to Korea in the football, but little will dampen the enthusiasm.

2) Ennis delivers under pressure, and with style

Jessican Ennis carried with her the expectations of everyone, as she was made the face of the Games in the year leading up.   She produced a spectacular performance, filled with PBs and charisma.  Her medal ceremony would have raised the roof on a closed stadium, and must be among the all-time highlights for a host nation.

3) Farah wins the 10,000m gold, with Rupp in second, for the worst African showing in decades

First of all, the gold went to a deserving champion in Mo Farah.  He may have been denied in Daegu last year, but he has been the world's premier distance runner for two years, and he duly bagged the gold that his status warranted.  He did so in a peculiar race, at least by my watching.

Going in, everyone had seen the movie before - go slow, wait to the last lap, and watch Mo Farah sprint away from you.  Kenenisa Bekele had seen it more than once, and though it was not always Farah out-kicking him, it was someone, and so he needed to avoid a re-run.  Yet that's exactly what happened.  The first 2km were painfully slow - 6 minutes.  It got better, first with Zersenay Tadese and then the Ethiopians pressing the pace into the 2:40s per km.  But in truth, all they were really doing was dangling off the front, and 5km was reached in 14:04.

After that, it was clear that Bekele and the Kenyans (well, everyone) needed a even faster pace to disrupt the 'script' that Farah would have been hoping for before the race began.  It never came.  Ethiopia tried, sort of, but again, they had men on the front, but the pace stayed firm but unspectacular.  The laps counted down and the opportunities to change the script were ticked off one by one.  By the time the bell was reached, there were still 11 men in the lead group.  I don't recall ever seeing a group that size at the bell in a championship 10km.  It was testament to the lack of punch at the front of the race.  And if it was not doing damage to ten men, then Farah, comfortable with a considerably faster pace, was certainly not going to be put into difficulty.

Farah was, of course, unmatched in the final sprint, winning it easily with a lap of 53.48s, and a final kilometer of 2:28.  Those are fast, but not eye-poppingly quick numbers.  I suspect that in the end, nothing anyone could have done would have beaten Farah - a 26:50 and he would have won, a 27:30, and he did win.  But the second half of this race was done in 13:26, so for all the "front-running", it was just a really tepid tactical effort.  Perhaps the east Africans just didn't have the weapons to change the structure of the race, because Bekele was clearly not at the kind of level to be aggressive off the 64 to 65 seconds per lap pace that was set for most of the race.

In the end, then, it was the other Bekele, Tariku, who got closest to Farah, but even that challenge faded, and in the home straight, it was Galen Rupp who came through for the USA's first medal in the event since Billy Mills in 1964.  That will no doubt inspire almost as much celebration in the USA as Farah's win for GB, and it will be interesting to see if either can grab a second medal in the 5,000m.  Farah looks a good bet in that event, and with Dibaba looking like a women's double winner, we may well have a repeat of Beijing, where two double golds are seen.  The difference is, it won't be Bekele.

4) Fraser Pryce defends

In the final track event, Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce defended her 100m gold with a dominant performance of 10.75s.  She had a tailwind (1.5m/s) in cool conditions, and used her explosive start to set the race up.  Carmelita Jeter challenged, and came close, with a 10.78s good enough for silver.  Veronica Campbell-Brown took the final medal in 10.81s.  It was a fast, deep race, with six sub-11 second clockings.

The track is clearly fast, then, which augurs well for the men's race tomorrow.  There, all the big names got through, and possibly saw the addition of a 'new' name to the mix, in Ryan Bailey.  He is of course the third American, and you don't get into that team without having real aspirations on a medal, but it was a surprise to see his 9.88s PB in the heat.  Admittedly, he ran all the way through the line, whereas all the others - Bolt, Blake, Gay, Gatlin, Powell - were able to coast for at least part of the race.  Bolt seemed to barely break out of a fast stride, looking in his heat like Fraser-Pryce did in hers.  Blake also looked mighty impressive, and tomorrow's sprints should bring the times down into the 9.80s for everyone.  Whether Bailey has a "jump" will be tested.

While on the matter of times, I thought I'd throw out a predicted time for the men's final - four years ago, Bolt won in 9.69s, but he cost himself between 0.03 and 0.05s with his celebrations.  So call it a 9.65s time.  One year later, he ran 9.58s, but has since returned to the 9.7-range.  So too have other men - Blake is in the low 9.70s, Gay seems to be capable of getting there.  Back in 2008, Bolt came to Beijing off the back of a 9.72s world record.  That is slightly faster than the times we've seen this year, though the big contenders have not shown their hands just yet.

However, given the trend in sprinting in the last few years, it's difficult for me to see a sub 9.60s clocking in London - a performance jump of 0.15s (which is more or less what it will take) seems too large, given that three years haven't produced anything under 9.70s.  The fast track is making me reconsider this, but then the cool conditions in London by 21h30 mean slower times too.  So if I had to guess right now, I'd say that a time of 9.68s will win gold tomorrow night.

Then again, I may be totally wrong! I hope I am, and I hope we see a record.  What I do know is that we'll see an incredible race - like the men's 10,000m, it has so many story lines in the race.

5) Tomorrow's action - a women's marathon to kick off

It's been a good games for defending champions.  Given how rare it is to defend an Olympic title, to have seen three in the first eight events is quite something.  Bolt will be aiming to be the fourth, although Ezekiel Kemboi will be hoping to do that when he races the steeplechase just before tomorrow's programme closes with the 100m final.

Also tomorrow, the women's marathon, and what should be an incredible race.  Here's a good pre-race preview, courtesy Letsrun.  My pick, for the sake of it, would be Keitany, followed by Kiplagat, in a repeat of London this year.  Shobukhova's performance will be fascinating, but I think the racing aggression of the Kenyans wins the top medals tomorrow.

Ross

London 2012: Pistorius and unfair advantage

The Science of advantage: Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius has just made his debut in the Olympic Games, finishing second in his heat, with a season's best of 45.44s.  It puts him into the semi-finals in joint 16th place, and ensures that the hype continues for at least another day.

Much has been said about Pistorius and the question of advantage.  No new thoughts on this from me, but rather links to what's been said in the past, and elsewhere, as well part of the Science of the Olympics Presentation that deals with the science of Pistorius' advantage.

In case you're new to the site, my take on the science, written a year ago, can be found in the following three articles, dealing with the science (get comfortable, they're long pieces because there is so much context and explanation):

1. Theory for the advantage and the IAAF testing - the hypothesis and first finding
2. Pistorius is "Metabolically similar" to long distance runners - how bad/dishonest science was presented to CAS to have Pistorius cleared
3. The full evidence on Pistorius - the mechanical advantages that explain physiology and performance advantage

If you're more in the mood for a brief summary, then this piece, by David Epstein, which was published  yesterday, tackles the mechanical issues in perhaps the clearest piece written on it so far.  It has a video to explain the concept that gives Pistorius the advantage, and explains the characters beautifully.  If you read between the lines, there's much there to make you wonder about the case and how it was eventually "won" - my three articles above go more into that detail.  I highly recommend it for anyone of you who is wondering, or being asked, or debating whether he has an advantage.

The evidence that was NOT presented. You should be asking 'why'?


I wish the media would produce more of the same quality investigation as this, instead of allowing itself to become the platform for the aggressive PR and dishonest claims made in the other direction.  Much of what you've read is an outright lie, much of it is clever obfuscation designed to make the science seem much more equivocal than it really is.

The comparison of Pistorius, a 400m sprinter, to elite and sub-elite long distance runners in the research by Herr et al is one of the best examples of this.  They did have data on sprinters - it made Pistorius look physiologically and metabolically different, and would thus have confirmed the IAAF finding to have him banned.  And so they presented instead a comparison between Pistorius and distance runners.

Those scientists who went to CAS on Pistorius' behalf also failed to disclose the finding of a mechanical advantage so large that the world's leading authority on sprinting concluded that it would provide a 12 second benefit.  Even though the magnitude of this advantage is debatable (I think it was an over-estimate, and the adjustment should have been more "aggressive", which gives 5 to 6 seconds), the theoretical basis for an advantage it is true, and it should have been disclosed when making a decision.  But, when their science has been commissioned with the sole purpose of clearing his name, why would Pistorius' scientists do this?  Especially when one of them has had his designs commercialized by the same company that make Pistorius' controversial blades.

The science on this issue is, I believe, very clear.  The disadvantages, which certainly exist, primarily in the first 30 m of the race, cannot possibly overcome even a cautious adjustment of the mechanical advantage, which would provide a 5 to 6 second advantage.  Emotion, massive commercial backing and PR always make science look frivolous, however.

Pistorius science: Part 3 of the Science of the Olympic presentation

And then finally, since this is the topical story of the day, below is PART 3 of my presentation on the science of the Olympics.  You'll recall that last week, I did a talk to the public on some of the scientific stories at the Games.  Pistorius is clearly one of them, and below, you can see a presentation that takes you through the issues.  Again, without the context and the explanation it may not flow perfectly, but I think it complements what David Esptein has written, and those three posts I wrote a year ago, fairly well.

Here is that presentation:

Science of Olympics: Oscar Pistorius on Prezi

Usain Bolt and the 100m men are up shortly.  Enjoy the action, and reviews later!

Ross

London recap: Track athletics, a review & previews

London recap: Dibaba dominant, a fast track, Pistorius science and a great men's 10,000m looms

Apologies for missing a day on the recaps - trying to follow the Olympics and work has left me feeling a little like Ryan Lochte began looking in his last few events in the pool.  And he has gold, silver and bronze medals to show for it!

But here are some thoughts from the track.  I still will comment on South Africa's rowing gold medal, because this is perhaps the most significant medal we've won at a Games.  And yes, I'm biased, but I'll tell you the story of why this is the case at some stage!

But for now, track and field kicked off last night.  Here's a look back, and forward:

1)  Track and field - Dibaba dominates, Ennis on track and Pistorius in SI

Last night saw the first track medal awarded, and it went to arguably the greatest female distance runner we've ever seen in Tirunesh Dibaba.  The Ethiopian destroyed the field with a 2:10 final 800m, a 62 second final lap, and won by an enormous six seconds.  Most remarkably of all, she really did look as though she had it in her to go quite a bit faster in the final few laps.  Earlier this year, she covered the final mile of a 5,000m race in 4:22.  According to Letsrun.com's recap of the race, her final mile tonight was 4:33.  Different distance and race leading up, of course, but it shows the capacity she has to finish and so it's difficult to see anyone beating her in a championship race.

Before the race, we all thought she would be pushed to the limit, because facing her was Vivian Cheruiyot, last year's dominant distance runner, who had gone unbeaten in just under two years.  She ended third, with Sally Kipyego splitting her and Dibaba.

Dibaba defended her 10,000m title from Beijing (a first), and added to her four world titles on track, two previous Olympic titles (an unprecedented double in Beijing - she may match that here), and four cross-country world titles.  She wasn't listed as a member of the Ethiopian 5,000m team, but surely it would be beauracracy gone mad to leave her out.  Cheruiyot would be a more difficult proposition over 5,000m, and Meseret Defar would also challenge, but Dibaba was so dominant tonight that you'd have a tough time betting on anyone else.

The guys at Letsrun.com have the race brief and analysis here, including post-race quotes from a satisfied Dibaba and a disappointed Cheruiyot.

2)  A super fast track

Also in track action, the first round of the women's 100m produced some noteworthy performances.  Normally, the first round of the short sprint is a non-event, as everyone shuts down with 50m to go and does what is necessary to qualify.  And that is more or less what happened yesterday, but it still managed to produce some incredibly fast times.  A 10.83s for Jeter, a 10.93s for Okagbare and 10.94s for Veronica Campbell-Brown were the fastest times.  There were national records and personal bests everywhere, and nobody really looked like they were extending themselves.

Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce was ridiculously comfortable winning her heat in 11.00s, looking as though she was doing a light stride rather than a 100m race.  The performances did have a following wind, but it wasn't that significant, and so it seems the London track is incredibly quick.  We will get further confirmation of that in a short while when the men run their first round (though I believe it may be raining), and then the women's semi-finals and final tonight will confirm that for sure.  With so many women so comfortably under 11.00s, it should be an incredibly fast race later.  Expect fireworks.

3)  Ennis on course

Also in action later is Jessica Ennis, the favorite for the heptathlon and the face of the London Games, at least its track programme.  She got off to a great start, with PBs in the hurdles and 200m, to take a pretty solid lead heading into day 2, where she has to confront a javelin event that has been a weakness before.  The talk was that she's focused on it to the point that it is no longer a huge weakness.  If that is the case, and if she can stand up under what is some pretty massive pressure (ala Cathy Freeman in Sydney), then a good long jump in the morning might well put her into an almost unassailable lead, and lead to gold for the local heroine.

4) Pistorius starts his campaign - David Epstein on the science

This morning's track action will be dominated by the 100m men who make their first appearance, and then Oscar Pistorius, who runs in the 400m heats.  His presence, while inspirational, is also debatable, and the question around advantage will persist.  As it should - the process by which the "science" cleared him was so dubious it was untrue, and his PR-machine has made people think it cleared him, when in fact the science says something else entirely.

David Epstein of Sports Illustrated has asked some of those questions, and produced this brilliant article summing up the views.  If you're watching the race, you'll probably be debating his presence.  This article is recommended reading before you do.

5) Farah vs Bekele vs Kenya vs Rupp - the men's 10,000m tonight

Jess Ennis' gold medal may be part of a golden double for Great Britain, because immediately after the women's heptathlon concludes with the 800m, Mo Farah will attempt to win the 10,000m gold against a field that is stacked with intrigue.  He takes on a field that includes Kenenisa Bekele, who, if he wins, joins Dibaba in achieving an unparalled defense of his title, with one exception - he'll have defended twice.  Haile Gebrselassie tried and failed to win a third Olympic 10k crown, and now Bekele has that shot.

Bekele has improved his times, but not his positions, in all his major 5,000m races so far this year - he started with a very slow 13:14, then jumped to 13:01, then a 13:00 and 12:56.  That's encouraging, but he was always being comfortably out-kicked in the final lap.  His 10,000m form has been more impressive, and of course last year he bounced back from not even finishing the Daegu 10,000m to run the world's fastest time of 26:43.

This all points to his likeliest tactic is to make sure the pace is fast and building in the final 3,000m.  His agent earlier this week mentioned that Bekele was over-raced and over-trained during that season of 5,000m races, and so having gone away to prepare with a single-minded focus, you wouldn't bet against Bekele arriving in London in at least the same kind of shape, being able to run 26:40.  However, that may not be the kind of shape needed to win a championship 10,000m, and that's where it gets so interesting.

In much the same way that Ethiopians wound it up in the women's race, Bekele needs to avoid a final 400m dash.  For Dibaba, I suspect it would not have made a difference anyway, but for Bekele, it would.  Mo Farah and even Galen Rupp have beaten him handily over 5,000m, always in the final lap, and he can't afford to be an extra in that storyline again.  Farah in particular is dangerous, and will in all likelihood win a final lap sprint.  Last year in Daegu, I felt that Farah took the pace on too early, kicked from too far out, and found Jeilan of Ethopia just too quick in the last 300m.  This year, there's no Jeilan, and Farah will be more prepared, or more astute, too.  He'll also be motivated by what is likely to be incredibly home support.

This is all a departure from previous Games, because we've always spoken of what others need to do to shake Bekele before the bell lap, and now the roles are reversed.  Farah will be defending until the bell, Bekele attacking.

Into this tactical intrigue, you have the Kenyan challenge.  It lacks a "legend" in the form of a Paul Tergat or even a credentialed 10,000m track runner, but it still has a balance that might just be perfect for the race.  Wilson Kiprop won the Kenyan trials, which makes him a contender, but the reality is that his best performances have come on the roads.  He is coming down in distance for this race, and so his approach, like that of Bekele, will surely be to press a long way from home.  In a final lap, it's easy to see him finishing out of the medals.  To win gold, he goes early, and that means the chance of an unlikely alliance between a Kenyan and Ethiopian, as this is exactly what Bekele probably needs.

The other Kenyans are Moses Masai and Bidan Karoki.  Karoki in particular is interesting, as he's shown aggression in previous races, and might provide even more spice in an already intriguing race.

And then there is Rupp.  Before last year, few would have picked him to be a contender, but his final lap speed has improved so much in the last year that he now becomes a very good chance.  He also has the ability to run a sub-13 5,000m, so a slow start, with a strong second half is not a huge problem.  Nor is a slow race to 9,000m.  And so he's almost certain to be in contention, and that means the chance of a first non-African medal in the event for a long, long time.  Farah, of course, is the other non-African, though he was of course born in Africa.

It promises to be a fabulous race.  I am completely undecided as to how it will go.  I think Farah, with his speed and the home support, is probably the logical favorite...just.  But having watched Dibaba last night, I just have a feeling that the Ethiopians have arrived in London with exactly the right form.  Bekele has done this before, knows what is required and history shows that he's able to round into excellent condition in less time than he's had here.  The only question is tactical, and whether he can get them right.

Right now, as I'm writing this, I'll predict that Bekele wins this from Farah, but in an hour from now, I'll probably think differently.  However it goes, it could well be a classic, because not only is the winner in question, but the manner is so open, and there are so many options for how this race might develop over the 27 minutes that it takes.  A highlight of the Games, for sure.

Join me later for insights!
Ross

London day 5: Sporting Giant claims gold

London Day 5: GB on the golden board as Sporting Giants bears fruit and other thoughts

Two very quick thoughts on medal-stories from the day's action

1)  The "Tall and talented" programme bears fruit

So the hosts got on the Gold medal board today, courtesy Heather Stanning and Helen Glover who absolutely dominated the  women's pair rowing final at Eton Dorney.  It was the cue for relief and wild celebration for the home fans, with an announcement on the London Tube one of many ways the word got round.  One has to say that the home support has been incredible - just look at the support for the cycling time-trial today and you see an Olympic Games that has truly been embraced by its hosts.

But apart from the obvious, the gold medal is significant because it represents the first Olympic delivery of UK Sport's Sporting Giants programme, which was created five years ago to identify future medal winners for Team GB.  Entry criteria - you had to be tall - 180cm for women, 192cm for men.  At least, that was the start.  Athleticism helped, of course, and Helen Glover met those standards, applied and found herself undertaking a journey that culminated in gold today.  Her story was already being held up as an example of targeted talent identification - I first heard of her (and the programme) at a sports science conference in the UK some years ago), and it's sure to be even more well-known after today.

Some of the programme's numbers are laid out at the end of this article, and it's interesting to see that the next phase is already in place, with the creation of a plan for Rio to build on 2012.  That plan takes a systematic approach to a) characterising the success factors for different sports, and b) identifying where "weak" sports may exist.

It's a cold and calculating approach to sport, it has to be said.  Last year in London, I attended a conference ahead of the Games, and one of the more interesting concepts was that the UK employed a "horizontal jumps specialist".  A PhD in engineering, his full-time job was to deconstruct long-jump and triple-jump performance, to ask what determined the length of the jump, and then knowing what would be required to win medals in London, how best to advise coaches when working with athletes.  It's a comprehensive approach where every percent matters.  But that's the kind of approach that produces results, though of course it's expensive and intensive.

Those of you who watched the Tour de France this year were watching one of the many outcomes of this approach, because systematic and logical "deconstruction" of cycling performance was one of the factors that drove Sky to the title for Wiggins.  They spoke of "marginal gains", which is another term bandied about in the conversation around high performance management.  It works, and it is impressive, and Glover is testament to that.

What is also intriguing is the cost-benefit analysis, and I have no idea what that might be, without knowing exactly how much money goes into it.  Comparing this programme to the alternative is equally challenging (that is, if you didn't spend X million on Sporting Giants, how would you spend it?).  But it's a fascinating illustration of one area that sports science is being applied, and there are sure to be more athletes who fly its flag in the next 9 days, starting tomorrow with another rower, Vicky Thornley in the women's eights.

2) The doping story that will not go away

All day, the emails have come in regarding Ye Shiwen's performance, not least of all because news outlets like CNN and VOA seem insistent on continuing the discussion. I must confess to being a little tired of it now - it's an issue that will receive no clarity, and is only creating tension between those who have a cynical view and those who do not.  Racism enters the picture, the debate is clouded and it ends up being a losing situation all round.  I am sure there will be a need for more thoughts on it, but for now, let me try to wrap it up and then focus on the upcoming athletics in future posts, rather than this draining discussion.

Take a look at the following two articles.

First, here is an article that points out that GB's Rebecca Adlington and Australian Ian Thorpe have done similar kinds of performances, with respects to finishing laps and improvements, as Ye Shiwen.  It makes some good points - I don't think they're all relevant, but what they do highlight is that this is a debate where one person can say X, and another can just as easily come along and say Y.  You'll recall that the Guardian recently ran a lengthy interview with a swimming insider John Leonard where he said pretty much the exact opposite, and the article linked to above takes his quotes and "exposes" them as insufficient in the current debate.  Fair enough.

It's just too easy to counteract each argument, each "reason" with one of your own, depending on which side of the doping-accusation divide you stand to begin with.  The point of giving the counter-view, then, is to show that this debate really shouldn't be polarized in either direction.   Unfortunately, the media have done this in a big way already.  I tried to analyze her pacing the other day, purely because it was an interesting physiological concept, and that too was turned into proof that she was doping, even though the relationship is indirect at best - the "hunt" leads to mass confusion, helping no one.

Truth is, if you are taking up a position at the extreme, whether you're the side of those saying "She must be doping", or whether you're on the side of those who say to leave it altogether, you're probably wrong.  This is a debate that calls for a comfortable seat on the fence, and then we can wait it out (it's not often I'd say that, but it's true here!)

This is also the reason why performance analysis will never constitute proof.  Let me repeat that - performance analysis will never constitute proof.  Put differently, in case you missed it - you cannot analyze someone's performance, be it their age, their improvement, their splits, and infer that they are doping based solely on these observations.  Why?  Because performance is too complex, and we have neither the sensitivity nor the reliability to make a strong conclusion.

So, what performance analysis can do is ask questions.  That's all.  The questions are asked based on what we see, but they are answered based on what we can find.  I'm all for questions - I think that questions drive transparency, and transparency is the key to cleaning up sport.  If you ask the hard questions, you force people to reveal more, or you show them to be liars who are trying to cover things up.  I, for one, WANT to trust the system, but history has made me hesitant.

If you are new to the site, then you'll have missed it, but for the last four years, every July, we spend hours dissecting cycling performances, because every year there are allegations of doping.  They're often allegations without "proof", but they're not unreasonable, because cycling has shown itself to be suspect.  If you wear yellow, you are under the spotlight. It doesn't matter whether you're Spanish, French, English, Italian or American.  Wear yellow, someone will ask you.  It's a magnet for anti-doping speculation.  Sad reality.

More broadly, anyone who succeeds at sport is also under a spotlight - if you want to find a "suspicious athlete", just look for who is wearing a medal!  OK, that's extreme, and I'm being over-cynical to make a point (I don't really believe this, by the way), but that's the climate of sport.  When Bolt, or Blake, or Gay, wins the 100m title on Sunday, you know that people are going to wonder.  Winners are marked as 'questionable'.

Unfortunately, some winners are more questionable than others.  That too is valid, albeit harsh on some, because it's largely historical.  And those in sport have been lied to too often to just believe denials.  In this second article, Craig Lord asks some harsh questions of coach Denis Cotterell, who has vehemently defended Ye.  He is on one extreme, in the same way that some media have adopted an extreme view that "she must be doping", he's gone the other way.

My point, again, is that neither extreme is right.  Let's ask questions, but let's seek answers over time, with proper testing.  The only answer will come from testing, but not in-competition, and not even the sporadic testing that is done.  "Aggressive" longitudinal testing, the kind that 'scares' athletes into less doping, the kind that changes behaviour and which forces doping to levels so low that it may not discernibly affect performance, that's what is needed.  If that means that some swimmers are affected more than others, good.  If it means the entire sport slows down, then even better.

But that's where the answer lies.  The question is found in performances, in history, and while these can easily become generalizations, they are not bad, in and of themselves.  The answers, however, lie in "detective work", and testing.  Stop looking for "smoking guns" - you will not find them.  Rather accept the challenge faced by anti-doping authorities, and push for transparency, so that we can all trust the performances.  And focus instead on the gold-medal wining performances, not racist allegations and retaliations.

In any event, athletics is on the horizon, and that is where the Games get really interesting.  Previews will come soon, along with recaps.

Ross

Science of the Olympics Part 2: Doping

Science of the Olympics presentation, part 2: Doping

So the other day I showed you the first part of a talk I gave to the general public, and it covered technology in clothing, specifically the swimsuits.

Today, it's part 2, and it deals with doping.  I tried to explain the biological passport concept, how it evolved out of the realization that traditional anti-doping methods were relatively ineffective, and that our insistence on finding a "smoking gun" in order to detect doping was compromising the fight against doping.  That is, we were naive to think that simply testing for a substance, either in or out of competition, was going to catch cheats and dissuade potential cheats.  It's just too easy to avoid detection, and the effect of drugs persists long after the drug is gone.

So, we have a paradigm shift in doping control, and it involves longitudinal testing in the form of a biological passport.  The concept is that rather than try to find the substance in the body, we can find its physiological effects.

The talk covered the basics, and then gave some examples of how the practice changes behavior, and more promisingly, performance.

It's by no means foolproof, and it's by no means the finished article.  And the evidence is part of a massive jigsaw puzzle, of which the slides below capture only a tiny part.  Of course, in my presentation, I explained much of the context, and so without that, the slides may seem incomplete.  The context includes, for example, our recent discussions on cycling performance, and on the legal process behind the passport - I couldn't get it all into the visuals.  Search the site for "biological passport" to find those pieces if you're hungry for more!

But it's hopefully a nice visual way of introducing the ideas to you.

More to come in the next few days, including the science of Oscar Pistorius.

And of course, Day 5 is underway, the recap comes later!

Ross