10 March, 2024

Welcome to the Enhanced Games

I have always had the feeling that someday, somebody would do that. And it's here now. Well, to tell the truth, it will be here when the first Games will take place, something that is still not quite guaranteed. But let us start at the beginning.  

From the Enhanced.org website


There you have it: the proposal is for sports events where there will be no mandatory drug testing. Aron D'Souza, who is heading the Enhanced Games organisation is an australian businessman. He had the idea for the Enhanced Games in 2022. In his own words

Athletes are adults and they have a right to do with their body what they wish: my body, my choice. And no government, no paternalistic sports federation, should be making those decisions for athletes.

And he segued,

If we cut out all the waste, the layers of bureaucracy, the needless building of infrastructure, this event can be delivered for virtually nothing, and we can use all the surplus profits to pay the athletes.

The prize money for exceptional performances can be as high as 1 million dollars. Australian swimmer J. Magnussen (olympic medalist in 2012 and 2016 and two-time 100 m freestyle world champion) vowed to come out of retirement and "push himself to the limit" in an attempt to break the 50 m freestyle world record and pocket the million. But he remarked that "this is not for everyone, and it is certainly not something for young athletes".

According to D'Souza, the IOC is corrupt and greedy, the WADA is an anti-science police force for the IOC, the Olympic system doesn't pay athletes enough and the Olympics include too many sports that don't really matter. 

So, what he proposes is a multisport event including athletics, aquatics, gymnastics, strength and combat sports. A test event is planned for December 2024 to be held in the US (but as of today nothing definitive has been announced).  D'Souza assured the BBC that everything would be done under security measures and under clinical supervision.

According to the Enhanced.org webpage:

Enhanced acknowledges that science has always played a central role in sports. Only in the past 50 years has the advancement of performance science in professional sports been stifled. Athletes have been forced into a cat-and-mouse game with drug testing agencies like WADA, attempting to stay one step ahead of the latest oppressive and invasive testing methodologies.

Enhanced athletes embrace the human belief in scientific development, ignoring the anti-science stigma. When used correctly, the inclusion of performance enhancements can have significantly positive effects on the results of training and exercise routines. Simply put, performance enhancements augment the effects of training.

Although I am not embracing the whole Enhanced rhetoric, I have a remark on the "past 50 years" point. Those who have followed my series on amateurism myth may recall that the IOC has been for almost a century preoccupied with the question of amateurism and only when, in the eighties, they decided that accepting professional athletes would add to the value of their product, did they start caring about doping and started using the arguments about "clean" sport and shifted their efforts towards the enforcement of anti-doping rules. 

The reactions of the IOC and WADA were what one would have expected. They unanimously condemned the proposals of D'Souza. The International Fair Play Committee (I did not know that something like that existed, but apparently it was created in 1963) declared that 

[The Enhanced Games] would be devoid of any fair play and sportsmanship. Moreover, they represent a potentially catastrophic healthcare risk to its participants, as athletes and their collaborators will inevitably try to push beyond healthy limits.

Quite expectedly Lord Sebastian was dismissive. At a conference just before the World Indoor Championships, he said "I'm sure crazy things happen in other areas, we get them from time to time. I'm not losing any sleep over it". But he warned that "If anyone is stupid enough to want to take part in this, and they come from the traditional and philosophical end of our sport, they will be banned and they will be banned for a long time".

D'Souza's response was immediate. He pointed out that many leaders of the Olympic movement, some of whom he was sure Lord Coe would consider part of his team, seem to be enthusiastic and have engaged with Enhanced. He noted that the very same week the 'Enhanced Games' organised the Inaugural Conference on Human Enhancement at the House of Lords in London, which ensured that 'the government and scientific leaders present know that the future of sports science isn't nonsense' as Coe suggested. And he concluded that "Enhanced Games are inevitable".

Well, I will believe this when I see the first event organised. As to the whole idea of test-free competitions, I have no clear opinion. The article "The Dangerous Promise of the Pro-Doping Enhanced Games” in the Outside site summarises the situation in a, what I feel, non-partisan way.  They conclude with the sentence "the best argument against the Enhanced Games might be something as banal as: better the devil you know than the devil you don’t". I will certainly keep an eye open and report on this if there are any significant news.

01 March, 2024

Soviet Union and the IOC (bonus track of "the amateurism myth")

Russia was not present in the first modern Olympics in Athens (although they had entered the names of competitors). The first participation of the Russian Empire was in the Paris, 1900, Games (without much success). They appeared again in the 1908 Games, winning their first gold medal (in figure skating) as well as two silver and again in 1912 with a large team which brought home two silver and three bronze medals. Then the World War disrupted the Olympics, the February and October revolutions did away with the tsarist regime in Russia and the Russian Empire disappeared. Soviet Union was finally created in 1922. 

The initial attitude of Soviet Union towards the Olympics was a most negative one. For them , the Olympic Games was a bourgeois invention, a misogynist, colonialist, and elitist movement that served to deflect workers from class struggles. The Games were a tool of “imperialist propaganda” hidden under “hypocritical phraseology about fidelity to the idea of brotherhood and friendship of the peoples in sport”. The soviet ideal of sport was a centralised state one, with mass participation, aiming at promoting social integration and health and preparing the population for national defence. It is interesting to point out here that the soviets' ideals about sport were very close to the beliefs of de Coubertin about the moral and educative power of amateur sport.

Shunning the Olympics the soviets decided to sponsor a rival thereof, the Red Sport International. The latter was founded already in 1921 and was an affiliate of the Communist International. The first Spartakiads took place in 1923 within formations of the Red Army and the International Workers' Olympiad was held in 1925. The first all-Union Spartakiad was organised in Moscow in 1928. Again, one cannot help pointing out that these communist organisations were closer to the Coubertenian spirit of amateurism than the baron’s socially and racially exclusive, patriarchal, and increasingly commercialised Olympics.


However the attitude of the USSR towards the Olympics changed after WWII. All of a sudden Stalin realised that the propaganda tool that were the Olympics could well be turned into a vessel for soviet propaganda. And thus the self-imposed athletic isolation of Soviet Union ended. Of course this was a source of worry for princes, counts, barons, generals, and wealthy businessmen that composed the IOC. Already at the end of the War, Edström, the IOC president, had remarked that the great  problem will be the question of Russia. (That was somewhat hypocritical, since the thorny problem was how to deal with the members of Nazi and Fascist parties already members of the IOC). 

But, in practice there has been no opposition to the admission of the USSR in the IOC. Even a die-hard anti-communist like Brundage declared already in 1944, that "if the Russians would agree to live up to the rules and regulations of the Federations and the International Olympic Committee there is no reason why they should not be members". The problem is that the Russians were not eager to agree with these rules and regulations. The soviet athletes were supported by the state and their exceptional performances rewarded. Moreover while the Olympic Charter required a complete separation between the state and the national Olympic committee this was something totally impossible in USSR. Brundage himself recognised this in 1950, wondering "how there can be a Russian Olympic Committee that is autonomous". But Brundage being essentially a hypocrite, he did not hesitate to defend the USSR, once the latter was a member of the IOC with himself at the presidency. Returning for a trip to the Soviet Union, Brundage, when challenged by a USOA representative concerning material rewards to athletes, he replied "I was told by the Russians that they know the Olympic rules and follow them".

In 1946, Edström wrote to N. Romanov, who was the chairman of the All-Union Soviet Sports Committee, that “your country’s sports organisation must adhere to the rules and amateur regulations of their respective international sports federations and an Olympic committee must be formed in Moscow”. The letter went unanswered but in 1947, Romanov formally applied for membership to the IAAF (that was the name of World Athletics at that time). But the application came with some special demands. They asked that russian become an official language of the IAAF, that a seat be reserved to UUSR in the executive council and also that Spain (ruled by Franco's fascists government) be expelled. Lord Burghley, president of the IAAF refused and, surprisingly, the soviets dropped their demands. Lord Burghley then travelled to Russia where he obtained reassurances that the existing soviet policy of remunerating athletes had been abolished and that the (western) rules of amateurism were accepted. So he endorsed the soviet application and moreover agreed to grant amnesty to russian athletes who had previously received cash payments.

Soviet Union did not participate in the London, 1948, Games (but were represented by a special emissary). Finally in 1951 it was announced that Soviet Union had formed an Olympic Committee. The president was C. Andrianov, a high-ranking Communist Party official and former head of the Moscow Sports Union. He did not speak any of the IOC official languages. In 1951 (almost unanimously with only three abstentions and no vote against) USSR was officially invited to join the IOC. And, pronto, the Russians announced that they would name their own IOC members. Edström was most unhappy with this but he could not do anything: if he rejected Andrianov, who would the IOC elect in his place? So, Andrianov was elected and a year later A. Romanov joined him.

Brundage, who succeeded Edström, was under the illusion that, given time, the Soviets would learn to respect the Olympic principles and abandon the professional character of communist sport. He tried desperately to avoid the nationalism pervading everything during the Cold War era. He even prohibited Olympic medal tables and proposed (without success) to replace national anthems with the Olympic hymn. Alas, contrary to our baron's teachings, everybody believed that winning was more important than taking part.

The soviets were masters of misdirection, playing a game of silence, ignorance, and denial. “Calumniatory accusals of soviet sportsmen in ‘professionalism,’ by some representatives of foreign press”, Andrianov decried, “do not contribute to the strengthening of friendly relations between the sportsmen of all countries and to the rising of the authority of the Olympic Movement". And he counter-attacked by stating that “America has the most professionals of all”, which is fact may be true. And the British regularly lent support to the Soviets, warning that the commercial orientation of collegiate sport “makes the United States’ representatives so vulnerable, when they talk about amateurism”.

Thus Soviet Union became a member of the IOC and would participate in all the Games from 1952 to 1988 (the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991) with one notable exception, that of the 1984 Games, a retaliatory move after the USA boycott of the 1980, Moscow, Games. But the story of the boycotts should better be told on some other occasion.

20 February, 2024

A fabulous article on French decathletes

The site Décapassion has just published a great article on French decathletes. I have already written about this superb site due to Frédéric Gousset. It is, to my eyes the best decathlon site on the web. For the Gousset family, decathlon is not just an athletic discipline, it's a passion.

This time they published an article on the history of french combined events. It's in french but you should not let that discourage you. Just use Google to translate to your preferred language and enjoy a great article on decathlon. One learns thus that, well before the first olympic decathlon in 1908, a general athletic championship was organised in France, already in 1892, with 10 events over 3 days. And an octathlon, disputed over a single day, was introduced in 1904.

Georges Hébert, a military instructor, posing in the photo below, 


introduced a combined event aiming at testing the physical condition of the soldiers. It comprised 10 events and was based on an (admittedly primitive) scoring table. Later he introduced a dodecathlon which included two swimming events (one in apnea!) as well. 


Alas, Hébert's combined events and their scoring were not competition-oriented. 

What I found really interesting in the article of Décapassion was the list of French decathletes who have scored more than 8000 points. They are 23 in all, with Romain Barras leading the group, having completed 35 events over 8000 points in the period 2003-2016. 

In an article of mine entitled "who is the best decathlete" I presented an analysis of the scores of the world's best performers compared to their potential maximum. R. Sebrle and T. Dvorak were the ones coming closest to their maximum with 97 %. O'Brien, who is probably the best decathlete of the modern era, has a decathlon score of only 94 % of his potential maximum. K. Mayer is between the two, with a 96 % score. So, I took the list of Décapassion and calculated the fraction of the decathlon score with respect to the potential maximum of each athlete. 

R. Barras is one of the best performers with a 97 % score. (The best of the list is Axel Hubert with 98.3 % but then this score is based on his unique great decathlon, the one from 2020 when he won the national championships). An interesting score is that of William Motti whose decathlon best is at just 91.3 % of his theoretical maximum. This confirms the feeling I have always had that Motti was a great talent who has never managed to fully realise his potential. (But let's not forget that he scored 8550 points in an unofficial competition which would improve his score to roughly 94 %).

As I said at the beginning of the article, if you are, like myself, a decathlon fan you must absolutely visit the Décapassion page and read their fascinating article on the history of french decathlon.

13 February, 2024

The inclusion delusion

Yes, I am going to talk about Caster Semenya again. I hate this subject but I hate even more the fact that people like Semenya are trying to kill women's sport, in the name of "inclusion".

As is often the case, I got the inspiration for this post while visiting the tweets of Ross Tucker. He pointed out a detail in the ruling of the CAS on the Semenya case. Tucker introduced this by saying "World Athletics had kind of tap danced and skirted around it in the Chand case, but when Semenya played this card at CAS, World Athletics responded". What this means is that Semenya argued that since men are 10 % faster than women how come she does not manage, if she is a man, to beat the other women by that margin? The answer is simple:  Semenya is not an elite male athlete; just a mediocre one. The ruling of CAS says so in a more polite way.


(Just in case you wonder what 5-AR deficiency is I suggest that you read this articleIt explains why some persons who are male do not develop external male genitalia). 

In the words of Tucker: "This is all blindingly obvious, but there are still academics who portray sub-elite male performance as indicating that either a specific athlete (Semenya, in this case) or the general case (males) doesn’t get performance advantages from male T [testosterone]. Nobody is actually that stupid, so anyone who makes this argument reveals motives, not understanding. You need to have a real desire to deny basic performance physiology to propose this fiction. So it’s a canary, in a way, for conflict. Which is why Semenya has to say it. But so too, WA needed to refute it".

The post of Tucker led me to one of Mara Yamauchi and things became more interesting. (M. Yamauchi is an elite female marathoner and Commonwealth Games medalist. She holds the third-best british women's marathon performance). Having exhausted all legal means Semenya is now playing the media war. She is publishing her biography "A Race to be Myself" and was invited to the BBC Woman's Hour on November 7th.

The interview led by Emma Barnett was anything but fair, cherry-picking the arguments and trying to gaslight the ones of the opposition. It started by stating that Semenya is not allowed to compete. This is of course a lie. Semenya can freely compete in the male category. Semenya could not deny the fact that she has testes but she brushed that away by saying that they “do not play any role in sports”. Then how does one explain the 10 % difference in races (it goes up to 30 % when it comes to throws)? When Barnett asked “Do you have an unfair advantage?” Semenya's answer was “No”. And she segued with the pernicious question why aren’t the DSDs running the same times as elite men? Alas, the answer is simple: they are not very good. Semenya's times are at best mediocre for a man.

Yamauchi pursues her analysis of the interview dismantling one by one Semenya's arguments. 

Semenya: “Sport has never been fair” because of genetics. Yamauchi points out that this is the Phelps gambit (meaning that some people have natural predispositions) that has been comprehensively dismantled ad infinitum. 

Ross Tucker’s clear explanation of male advantage and the performance gap between males and females was dismissed by Semenya as “nonsense”.

Semenya did not hesitate to attack the female athletes who have spoken against the inclusion of DSD athletes in women's sports by saying “That’s their problem because they are fed with wrong info” and asking “Why aren’t they winning medals?”. Unfortunately, the answer is simple: "Because the medals are won by DSD males". 

Fortunately, this is no more the case since DSD athletes are banned from Athletics unless they reduce their testosterone levels to a low that will, hopefully, suffice for them not to be competitive. But, of course, this is not a 100 % foolproof measure. Lowering testosterone levels does not reverse all the advantages acquired during male pubertal development.


Semenya concluded her interview by stating that "she believes in fairness". Nothing is further from the truth. She's an average (at best) male athlete who has been exploited by her country and her coaches to be labelled a black South African 'female champion'. And she has been playing the game from the outset. And to add insult to injury she does hesitate to make fun of the women athletes. When, after the Rio Olympics final, L. Sharp burst into tears and spoke out, Semenya riposted, "Lynsey is a good runner. She would have been better if she had just bit her tongue and trained".  

However, the case of DSD athletes is not the only danger for female sports. There is a huge one lurking, that of transwomen, i.e. men who decided one day that they prefer to be women and they claim that this gives them the right to compete in the women's category. World Athletics has taken the brave decision to exclude them. World Aquatics also. Unfortunately, we live in an era of woke-ism, and there is a large part of "progressive" thinkers who are ready to sacrifice women's sports on the altar of "inclusion". There is a great video clip produced by the association "Fairplay for Women" where several british champions speak about the danger of the inclusion argument for women's sports. I suggest that you watch it (and I did not hesitate to steal its title and use it for this post). And, do not forget: the term transwoman is a fictional, gaslighting, male rebranding farce.

01 February, 2024

Women's indoor heptathlon enters the history books

There have probably been previous organisations of indoor women's heptathlon. And in any case, there have been several regional competitions in France prior to the X-Athletics meeting where a women's indoor heptathlon was staged. But the one in Aubière on January 27-28 was the first official one, taking place in a competition which is part of the World Athletics combined events world tour.

Being the first "official" competition (although I don't know whether World Athletics is considering that event official or is just tolerating its inclusion in the program) it should lead to a world record, the first of the kind. But here things get complicated. When the women's decathlon was introduced, scoring tables were available and a minimum mark of 8000 points was fixed as a prerequisite for the homologation of a world record. In the case of the indoor heptathlon the problem is that the current scoring tables for women's events do not include marks for the 60 m and the 1000 m. This is utterly ridiculous. Where are the T&F statisticians? Are we back to the Dark Coubertenian Ages when women's events were considered a no-no in Athletics?


Anyhow the first official women's heptathlon took place and it was a success. The field was small but for a first of the kind that was not a disadvantage. On the contrary, it helped have the event well-focused. There were four french and two american participants. J. Bruce was the best decathlete among the six with a 6659 personal best. The other US athlete, L. Kuntz (a 5293 points decathlete) is the current world record holder for icosathlon for women, with 11653 points. R. Bidois and A. Audigier were the two most experienced decathletes of the french contingent with 6138 and 6107 points, A. Previdi having a 5507 personal best. Curiously the winner of the event N. Desailly was the only one among the six not having a decathlon experience. 


Desailly took control of the event from the outset and never relinquished it till the end. Her performance 5761 points (very close to her personal best of 5695 in the outdoors heptathlon) is the best performance for the event. Is that a world record? Alas, no. The problem with the scoring tables offers the perfect excuse for World Athletics to ignore this event. When you visit the individual athletes' pages on the WA site, you can find the results of the individual events (I checked the pole vault ones and they were all registered) but there is no mention of the indoor heptathlon. I am convinced that, despite lengthy speeches insisting on the contrary, World Athletics does not care much for women's events. And combined events athletes are considered troublemakers since they started fighting for the inclusion of the decathlon in the official women's program. So, women's indoor heptathlon faces an uphill battle while WA will try to kill it pretexting that there is no available scoring or, even more preposterous, that proposing an official scoring for the two missing events will require years of studies and a disproportionate investment. But I am convinced that in the end women will prevail and one day the last bastion of disparity will fall.

20 January, 2024

The benefits of isometric training

I recently came across an article on the effects of exercise training on blood pressure. I found the idea interesting since the antihypertensive action of exercise is well known and the usual recommendation is aerobic training of various intensities. However the current guidelines for blood pressure control are based on rather old data, where more modern exercise modes like interval training and isometric exercise training had not been considered. 

The findings of the study were somewhat surprising. As expected, aerobic exercise training, dynamic resistance training, combined training, high-intensity interval training and isometric exercise training do reduce blood pressure. What was unexpected was that the most effective exercise mode was isometric exercise training.


The authors of the study argue that their findings provide a framework that would allow the proposal of new exercise recommendations aiming at preventing and/or treating hypertension. Their findings are summarised in the infographic below.


First let us define what is meant by isometric. Isometric exercises are static. The muscles do contract but do not change their length. The joints involved do not move. The body is supposed to be stable. Isometric exercises can be done with weights but also using just one's body weight. In this sense they are extremely simple, neither necessitating specific equipment nor taking up much space. And they are of rather short duration.

The paper I mentioned being a scientific, public health-oriented, one does not offer specific exercise recommendations. For those of you who would be interested in more specific recommendations here are my favourite two. 

The first is the plank. One starts by assuming a position with the elbows directly beneath the shoulders and the body forming a straight line from head to heels. One must engage the core muscles and  hold this position, keeping the back flat and avoiding sagging or arching. One must remember to breathe steadily throughout the exercise. The duration should be one that challenges one's endurance, gradually increasing the time as strength improves.  Variations, such as side planks or plank with leg lifts, do also exist.


The second is the wall-sit exercise. One begins by standing with the back against the wall and the feet about shoulder-width apart. Then one lowers the body into a seated position, sliding down the wall until the knees form a 90-degree angle. One must ensure that one's back is pressed against the wall and the thighs are parallel to the ground. The position is held, engaging one's quadriceps, hamstrings, and glutes. This is an effective isometric exercise that targets the lower body, particularly the quadriceps, and helps build muscular endurance over time. For those who would like variations of the wall-sit exercise, here is a link to a page from Inspire US Foundation. (And, in case you are wondering, they also have a page on an interesting plank variation).


A proper isometric training program usually involves four two-minute contractions, separated by one- to four-minute rest intervals. Beginners should not go for such durations and should adapt the contraction times to their possibilities, increasing them progressively as they become more proficient. One sees that the plank and wall-sit set can be done in less than half an hour. Isometric training can be done three times per week and can be incorporated into a training program involving exercises of other type. 

11 January, 2024

Great news for women's decathlon

Women's decathlon was officially introduced more than 20 years ago. And, after the initial enthusiasm and two great world records, World Athletics decided to forget about it. Was that due to pressure from short-sighted heptathlon coaches? Was that due to existing heptathlon champions who, in order to win another medal, were ready to sabotage the discipline? We'll never know. It remains that the most exciting event in all athletics remained, in a blatant display of anti-feminism, a men-only affair. And all this when World Athletics was speaking about men-women parity and even pushed for the inclusion of the 50 km race-walk for women in the official program.

A few women did fight for the right to compete in the decathlon, learning to throw the discus and pole vaulting, and thus perhaps compromising their chances at the official discipline, the heptathlon. Jordan Gray has been leading this fight, with her "Let Women Decathlon" and organizing decathlon competitions. And little by little things started to change (although the epidemic did complicate the situation). 


In 2023 there have been several organisations, two of them taking place in France. And the one during the "Open de France" was a definite success. (Jordan Gray did participate but injured herself and could do no better than 7841 points). And the FFA, the French Federation of Athletics, decided to organise the first national championship of the event. It will be held in Talence (that was where Marie Collonville established the inaugural world record with 8150 points). It will be again during the Open de France in mid-July.  

That will be the first time in the world that a national champion title will awarded to a woman decathlete. Will the french initiative pave the way for more official national organisations? Will the french success, in particular, if imitated worldwide, push World Athletics towards establishing an official competition for women's decathlon? I guess we'll have to wait and see.  

Not much is known concerning the technical details. However, as it was announced that if the number of female participants is not sufficient to warrant the creation of a specific group the women will compete together with the juniors, one can conclude that the order of the events will be the "normal" one, i.e. that of the men's decathlon. (And not the utterly stupid one where the field events were contested on the opposite days than those for men, penalising thus the women decathletes).

In preparation for this new event, two members of the documentation and history commission of the french federation compiled the list of the best french feminine decathlon performances. There are 41 entries in their list with performances above 5000 points. M. Collonville is, obviously, leading this list. But what I found interesting is the first performance by Corinne Truffault who in 1994 participated in a decathlon in Germany. The funny thing was that she had to run the 110 m hurdles, with the men's 9.14 m distance between the hurdles (but, at least, with the women's height of 0.84 m). Her score of 5465 points is, by rights, the first national record in the event. It was improved the following year by A.-S. Devillier with 6888 points, then J. Mezerette in 2001 with 7470, three years before the world record of Collonville.

But the news does not stop there. During the same meeting of the Federation it was (more or less) decided to organise a women's heptathlon, (following the men's model). During a competition that is part of the World Combined Events Tour. Having a women's indoor heptathlon included in an official, World Athletics-sanctioned, competition would be a great step forwards for the women's combined events. My only reserve is that I do not like the men's heptathlon. In a recent post of mine, I explained that a pentathlon would have been the perfect indoor combined event for men. And, since the pole vault is crucial for this event, one could imagine a pentathlon formula like the one for women, with the pole vault replacing the high jump. And, apply the same formula to a new women's pentathlon, with a 1000 m replacing the 800 m. The women's heptathlon is tentatively scheduled for January. I will certainly follow the event and report here.

01 January, 2024

Who is the real winner of the first Olympic Marathon?

Warning. The subject of this post is delicate. Had a foreigner written about this, I would have found it untoward. But being Greek I consider everything Greek to be part of my inheritance and so I can question and cast doubt on what is considered one of the greatest moments of Greek athletics.

If there is a name even people who do not care at all about Athletics do know (at least in Greece) it's that of the winner of the first Olympic Marathon: Spyridon (Spyros) Louis. He appeared into the world of long-distance running out of thin air and, as soon as the Olympics were over, he disappeared, never to run again. In order to understand why I am questioning his victory, I must tell the story of the Olympic Marathon from the beginning.

As I explained in my article on the myth surrounding Pheidippides, it was Michel Bréal, a personal friend of de Coubertin, who suggested that a race from Marathon to Athens be held during the 1896 Olympics. The news spurred enthusiasm among the Greek and long-distance races started being organised ahead of the official race. On March 10th the Greek Marathon Championship took place. It served as qualifier for the Olympic Marathon scheduled for March 29th, the first six athletes being qualified for the Olympics. Ch. Vasilakos won the race in 3 hours and 17 minutes. 

Vasilakos (middle) during a training session

At this point, I must stress that the person in charge of the official Marathon was an Army major, G. Papadiamantopoulos. He was a one-person organising committee and was also in charge of the Marathon course. Now it happened that Louis had served under Papadiamantopoulos during his military service and the major remembered that his ex-recruit had a good running stamina. So he lobbied for an additional qualifying round (to be held on March 24) in which Louis would be participating. The condition for being included in the team was to finish in a time better than the one of Vasilakos. The first four finishers succeeded. Louis finished fifth with a time of 3:18:27 and was not qualified. Big discussions ensued and in the end, all six finishers of the additional race were included in the team. The rationale behind this decision was that with a large Greek team, the chances for a Greek victory were increasing. (I really don't see how adding inexperienced runners who had run a marathon just four days before the official one would increase the chances of a victory but one cannot know what Papadiamantopoulos was thinking). 

The Marathon milestone

The big day was March 29th. Four foreigner runners were taking part: E. Flack, A. Lermusiaux, A. Blake and G. Kellner. The first three were middle-distance runners without any experience in marathon-long distances. Only Kellner had a long-distance experience having run a 40 km qualifying race in Budapest. They started next to the boundary stone indicating a distance of 40 km from Athens. There were no judges along the course which was patrolled by Papadiamantopoulos soldiers on horse. 

At mid-race, Lermusiaux was leading followed by Flack, Blake, Kellner and Vasilakos. Louis was 10 minutes behind the leader. Shortly afterwards Blake dropped out. Lermusiaux could not go beyond 32 km and Flack took the lead. And then an amazing thing happened. At around km 33 Louis caught up with the leader. Flack tried to resist but ran totally out of steam and at km 37 dropped out of the race. Louis took the lead and continued with a brisk pace until he arrived at the Panathenaic stadium. Meanwhile, Papadiamantopoulos on horseback had rushed to the stadium announcing that the leader of the marathon was a Greek. Louis arrived at the stadium completing his race in 2:58:50. Vasilakos followed him in 3:06:03 with Belokas and Kellner obtaining the next positions in 3:06:30 and 3:06:35 respectively. 

All three runners arriving after Louis were astonished when they learned their relative order, all pointing out that they did not remember Louis surpassing them at any point of the race. Vasilakos was more explicit. He met Louis after the race in the changing room and told him: "I don't wish to spoil the day and disappoint those who are rejoicing. I will not file a protest. Let God be your judge". Indeed it was too late to change the result. Louis' victory was the only Greek one in Athletics and casting any doubt on it would have been a major disappointment, even if Louis were replaced by another Greek. 

McFail's book on Vasilakos and Louis

So, first, let us look at the facts. Vasilakos, an experienced runner, improved his time by some 10 minutes between March 10th and March 29th. Louis, running two marathons in four days, improved his time by 20 minutes. And not only this, but he managed to make up a 10-minute delay at mid-race. In his book, D.G. McFail (he is Greek despite the Scottish name) does not hesitate to offer the hypothesis that Louis must have run part of the race on horseback thanks to Papadiamantopoulos' troops. 

On the side of the cart is written "Sp. Louis Olympic winner"

After the Olympics Vasilakos and Belokas challenged Louis but the latter did not rise to the challenge. He never ran again. He lived the rest of his days making a living by carrying water with a cart offered to him as a reward for his victory. His last official appearance was at the 1936, Berlin, Olympics as part of the Greek delegation.

Vasilakos went on to have a career as a race-walker. (He was the one who introduced the discipline to Greece). An injury in the weeks preceding the 1906 Olympics prevented him from taking part in the Olympic Marathon.

Personally, I think that Louis has been used by Papadiamantopoulos who, fearing the victory of a foreigner, concocted a plan ensuring a Greek victory. When it became clear that the Greek athletes could prevail it was too late, the plan had been executed and there was no going back. This probably deprived Vasilakos of a well-merited title, but, alas, the 1896 Marathon history cannot be rewritten. 

21 December, 2023

On race-walking stupidity

Let me start with a warning. In the photo below one can see the 2023 world champions. They are great athletes. I am deeply convinced of this. Any critique I am raising concerning race-walking is not addressed at the athletes but at the discipline itself. The athletes compete within the rules set by the international instances. They train (very) hard and make sacrifices in order to reach the summit of their discipline. They have my unquestionable admiration. What I am criticising is the set of rules which allow for an unnatural sport to exist.


In 2018 World Athletics, in the name of men-women parity (while they steadfastly refuse to do anything about women's decathlon) decided to open the 50 km race-walking event to women. Women have been competing on that distance well before that date. On the World Athletics page with the best performances one finds the name of Sandra Brown with a 4:50:51 performance from 1991. The world record is held by Y. Lashmanova with 3:50:42. Inês Henriques won the first world title in 2017. 

However, after the proposal for the inclusion of the events in the Tokyo Olympics was rejected, the event was discontinued and World Athletics decided to revise the distances of the race-walking events. There have been several conflicting announcements on this point and most turned out to be inaccurate. 

The initial Paris Olympics athletics program did not contain any individual event. It was later revised so as to include the 20 km for both men and women. However, the 50 km has definitely disappeared. It was replaced by a relay event, for a mixed team of two, each athlete running two legs. Now, this is the interesting part. The IOC page talks about a marathon,i.e. a 42195 m race. But the program of the Paris Olympics announces a 35 km. 


When I wrote "each athlete running" in the paragraph just above I hesitated just a bit but then I decided to let it pass. After all, it is clear that all high-level race-walking involves running. And this is the reason why I am always criticising this unnatural discipline.  But here I am not going to pursue this line of criticism. Rather I would like to point out why the World Athletics choice of distances for the individual events, 20 and 35 km is absurd. 

First, compare last year's women's World Championships results. Do you remark something? 



Next, in my post on my choice of 2022 best athletes, I included A. Drisbioti who had won both the 20 and the 35 km in last year's Europeans. And this year both distances were won by the same athlete in the men's category (Álvaro Marín) and women's (Maria Pérez). Is that a simple coincidence? I do not think so. For me, this is a stupid choice of World Athletics. The two distances are too similar when it comes to the effort involved and an athlete can train perfectly and be in top shape for both. Had they chosen, say 10 and 35 km, the situation could have been different. It would be preferable to remove one distance altogether and keep just the longer one, perhaps even shortened to 30 km. 

But what would have been even better would be to forget altogether about race-walking. 

12 December, 2023

The 2023 World Athletics Awards

World Athletics sprung a surprise upon us by nominating not one but three athletes of the year. They decided to nominate the best athletes for track, field and road. This had the advantage of providing a solution to the Duplantis-Lyles dilemma. By this decision, both were nominated and WA did not have to choose (a choice that would have been unsatisfactory in every case). So Lyles carried away the award for track and Duplantis for field. The road awards went to Kiptum and Assefa who established new world records in the marathon. As expected, Kipyegon won the award for women's track. 


My only objection is the nomination of Rojas for the women's field award.  If I had to choose a female field specialist among the WA chosen ones I would unhesitantly choose Nageotte. But Rojas appears to somehow be the "blue-eyed" girl of World Athletics: she has already won the title once and she obtained another one this year when her performances have been far from stellar. 

And, of course, I regret the fact that Jackson could not get a distinction beyond being included in the finalist list, but in the end, I would have chosen Kipyegon myself (in fact, I did).

There was no surprise in the Rising Star Awards. As I predicted Wanyonyi obtained the men's title. Knighton could have won, but the fact that he had already been nominated in 2021 and 2022 put him at a slight disadvantage. Topic also was at a relative disadvantage since she had already obtained the European title. So the choice went to Cherotich as I had predicted (well, after having forgotten her in my initial choice).

The remaining World Athletics nominations for the 2023 awards (at least the ones I am interested in) were not really to my taste. The only possible exception is that of L. Meuwly's nomination for the Coaching Achievement award. Meuwly is the coach of F. Bol (who shined in the low hurdles this year) and, in fact, of most of the Dutch 400 m male and female stars.  

The World Athletics photograph of the year was a pure let-down. I will not even show the photo that won the prize. (If you care about having a look at it, here is the link). As far as I am concerned, I still prefer the one with Bol's fall in the mixed 4x400 m relay, and if I had to choose another one, I would opt for the photo of G. Tamberi celebrating his victory.

L. Gidey won the Fair Play award. The reason for this was that, after winning silver behind Tsegay in the women's 10000 m, Gidey went back to comfort S. Hassan after the latter fell on the track during the sprint for first place. Does this count as fair play? I am not convinced.

Now we have to wait till the end of 2024 to see if the decision to nominate the best athletes for track, field and road will become the rule (in which case the initial selection and that of finalists should be broader) or if it was a one-shot thing meant to avoid a difficult choice in the case of men's title.

PS. And if you wonder what is a great sports photo, here is one


by the famous photographer of l'Equipe, R. Legros, who passed away a few days ago.

01 December, 2023

Where are the talents of yesteryear?

Warning! This article was written before the 2023 World's 1500 m final where Kerr managed to beat Ingebrigtsen for the world title. Nothing has changed as far as the conclusions of the present article are concerned, and my comments on what went on in the 2023 World's can be found in the corresponding article.

The origin of this post is somewhat complicated, so I feel that some explanations are in order. As you know I am a big fan of Pierre-Jean Vazel and I follow regularly his tweets. There is always something interesting there. However, with the turmoil Twitter is undergoing I have resorted to asking Google whenever I was looking for something specific. And, during one of my searches, Google pointed me to an article by Vazel on the Simplifaster site. It was an analysis of Keni Harrison’s, 2016, 12.20 s world record 100 m hurdles race. That was not what I was looking for, but I was intrigued and I decided to read it. As usual, Vazel's analysis is great and I do recommend that you give it a try.

Vazel explains that Harrison dipped and one of the two photoelectric cells on the finish line could not detect her. So the initially announced time was wrong (based on the second finisher). Of course, once the photo finish was analysed all went back to normal and Harrison got the world record. This led Vazel to comment on a similar situation when in the women(s 400 m race at the Rio, 2016, Olympics, Shaunae Miller dived across the finish line, causing a timing bug. The screen displayed Miller’s time as 49.51, but that was Allyson Felix's time. Of course, the photo finish gave the correct times 49.44 to 49.51, and the victory to Miller. Vazel then went on to cite Kumari Taki’s dive during the 1500 m final at the 2016 World U20 Championships. (Vazel is talking about 5000 m, a curious mistake for somebody of his experience). I had never heard of this and I decided to look for the video. Fortunately, it did exist and I discovered that among the participants of the final was one Jakob Ingebrigtsen.


Ingebrigtsen finished 9th in that race (he was just 16 years old) and went on to become one of the best middle-distance runners of all time, winning olympic and world titles. When I read Vazel's article I was following the 2023 European U20 championships and I was wondering how many of the protagonists would survive the transition to senior category. The 1500 m final of the 2016 World U20 Championships was a good test case. So I decided to find out what has become of the finishers. 


1. Kumari Taki, PB 3:34.14 (2020). He was 4th at the 2022 African Championships. No performances in 2023 but this may be due to injury.

2. Taresa Tolosa, PB 3:34.47 (2017). He was 5th at the 2016 African Championships.  Won a Diamond League event in 2018. He moved to longer distances from 2020.

3. Anthony Kiptoo, PB 3:35.33 (2015). Disappeared after 2018.

4. Baptiste Mischler, PB 3:32.42 (2021). He is still in activity but only at a national level.

5. Ajay Kumar Saroj, PB 3:39.19 (2023). He was Asian champion in 2017 and again in 2023.

6. Matthew Ramsden, PB 3:34.08 (2021). He was the Oceania champion in 2021.

7. Jordi Torrents, PB 3:40.92 (2016). He dropped out in 2018, then came back in 2022 but did not have any performance in 2023.

8. Asres Guadie, PB 3:41.9 (2017). Disappeared after 2018.

10. Josh Kerr, PB 3:29.05 (2021). He was 3rd in the Tokyo Olympics. (And world champion in 2023).

11. Elzan Bibic, PB 3:34.20 (2023). He was 3rd in the European Indoors 2023.

12. Ayoub Sniba, PB 3:39.42 (2018). Disappeared after 2018. (He had the best time in the heats, a time sufficient for first place in the final, but apparently, the slow, tactical, race in the latter did not suit him).

So, out of the 12 finalists, we have one superstar, one who is part of the middle-distance elite, 3 who have distinctions at a continental level, 3 who are still active albeit with no great success, and 4 who just dropped out. Is that representative of athletics in general? Should one expect fewer than half of the athletes who were distinguished when junior to have a successful career as senior? I don't know the answer to these questions. However, it is clear that many of the athletes we admired in Jerusalem, during the U20 Europeans, will turn out to be early bloomers, withering soon after.

25 November, 2023

World Athletics 2023 finalists

I have been waiting for World Athletics to publish the list of finalists for the photograph of the year (initially planned for November 16th) before presenting a summary of this year's finalists. They were one week late with respect to what they had promised. But, let us start with the photos. Only three photos were given in the finalists' list while I would have liked to have access to all those that have been shortlisted. World Athletics promises that there will be a digital exhibition on the website later this month. Given that the end of the month is just one week away, I do not understand why they did not present the shortlisted photos right away. Be that as it may, when they make these photos available, if there are ones I like particularly, I will take care to include them in my article on the WA Athlete of the Year. For the time being, my preferred photo is the one with Bol's fall in the 4x400 m mixed relay.


But I must admit that the photo of Tamberi is also excellent.

The finalists of the Female Athlete of the Year title are

Tigist Assefa
Femke Bol
Shericka Jackson
Faith Kipyegon
Yulimar Rojas

Kipyegon and Jackson were first and second in my selection. I believe that one of those two will win the Athlete of the Year title. All the more so, since Rojas has already won in 2020, Assefa is a newcomer and Bol just won (for the second year in a row) the European title.

The list of the male athletes is

Neeraj Chopra
Ryan Crouser
Mondo Duplantis
Kelvin Kiptum
Noah Lyles

Again Duplantis and Lyles were first and second in my list. But Duplantis won in 2020 and 2022, so, perhaps, WA will choose Lyles this time. (In fact, European Athletics chose Ingebrigtsen for this year's title although Duplantis was among the finalists). Chopra, Grouser and Kiptum are great athletes but I don't think they hold a chance compared to Duplantis and Lyles.

I wrote in my article that sharing the gold medals in the women's pole vault was a display of fair play. And in fact, Moon and Kennedy did appear on the shortlist for the fair-play award. However (and in particular since Moon had received the prize last year), they did not make the list of finalists, which comprises 

Daniel Ebenyo
Letesenbet Gidey
Jessica Warner-Judd

My favourite is J. Warner-Judd, who waited and shook hands with the final-placed runner in the women's 10000 m, in Budapest.

Finally, there is the Rising Star Award. In the women's category, the three finalists are

Faith Cherotich
Medina Eisa
Angelina Topic

Topic was my number-one choice (but I am worried that, since she obtained the European title, she may be passed over for the World one). I preferred Haylom over Eisa and I stand by my choice. On the other hand, I realise that I overlooked Cherotich (who will probably win the title) but this is perhaps due to the fact that I had eyes only for the two great champion steeplechasers Chepkoech and Yavi. 

In the men's list, one finds 

Roshawn Clarke
Erriyon Knighton
Emmanuel Wanyonyi

Knighton is the obvious choice, but he was Rising Star laureate in 2021 and 2022, so I preferred to give him a pass. For me, Wanyonyi is this year's favourite but it's a pity that Tebogo could not be selected according to the World Athletics' criteria.

On December 11 World Athletics will announce the choices for the various awards. And I will definitely report with my comments.

18 November, 2023

On millimeter stupidity (the Ackelia Smith case)

I could not resist the temptation, after having written about millisecond stupidity, to write an article on a, roughly, analogous situation for field events.

But let us start at the beginning. I was following the long jump women's world championships final and noticed that there were 9 athletes participating in the last three jumps. The person who was commenting on the championships did not give any explanation, and in any case, the presentation was at best fragmentary, focusing on the attempts of the best athletes. When the results were published on the World Athletics site there was no mention of the 9th jumper and if you try today to find any trace of this you will find none. 

I was intrigued and tried to understand what had happened. Fortunately, the livestream of that particular event existed and the video had all the details. So here is the story.  

Ackelia Smith is a jamaican long and triple jumper with personal bests of 7.08 m and 14.54 m respectively. She won the NCAA indoors this year with 6.88 m. She qualified for the long jump final with 6.78 m (but could not qualify for the triple jump where she managed only 13.95 m). In the long jump final she started with a foul and a 6.49 m jump and then she had a third attempt at around 6.85 m. That would have given her access to the final three jumps and even made her a candidate for a medal. 


But her jump was declared a foul. My worst fears, which I voiced in my
article aptly entitled  "Are they trying to kill the horizontal jumps? (I think so)", were coming true. Smith's jump was declared a foul for 1 mm! Look for yourself at the photo below and try to find the culprit millimetre.


This is the problem with World Athletics: they introduce a rule which looks good on paper and have blind faith in technology, deluding themselves as to the precision that can be offered by the instruments of measure. I can see the picture: the representatives of the company offering the measuring apparatus, all of them vendors with scant technical knowledge, brainwash the WA hierarchy insisting on the fantastic precision of their apparatus. And from there onwards it's the athletes who suffer the consequences. 

Back to A. Smith. She protested when her jump was declared a foul but during the time it took her to protest the trace was erased in the pit. So the judges could only allow her to pursue the competition "under protest" and she took three more jumps. Unfortunately for her, all of them were in the 6.50 m region. Thus she was classified at the 11th place and that was that. 


It is practically impossible to find anything about what I explained above. The World Athletics site does not contain any detail on Smith's attempts under protest. The same is true about the Wikipedia page, which is usually more detailed than the official WA one. 

That was an unfortunate incident which shows that the WA decision to do away with the plasticine was a downright stupid one. Trusting measurements down to one-millimetre precision is absurd. But things are even worse. When a jump is declared a foul the pit assistants erase the trace in the sand preparing the pit for the next athlete. So, unless the athlete reacts with lightning speed, once the trace is erased it is too late for protests. In an old post of mine, I told the story of how King Carl was robbed of a 9+ m world record. The case of A. Smith shows that something is rotten in the WA decision to remove the plasticine. Previously, when there was a foul, the athlete had the time to see the trace on the plasticine board and during that time the pit assistants were waiting before erasing the trace in the sand. (This is not what happened in the case of King Carl: I tell the detailed story in my article). Now there is practically no possibility of protest. We are trusting millimetres and disasters are lurking.

What can be done? The most sensible thing to do (we are talking here about major competitions) is, whenever an automatic detection of fouls is used, instead of just flashing a red colour, to provide also a photo of the foul step on a screen next to the pit. In this way all persons involved (athlete, judges, pit assistants) can have a clear view of the situation and, if the latter is not clear, the assistants must wait before erasing the athlete's trace in the sand until the responsible judge gives them the authorisation. So, the athlete has the time to protest and also obtain a measurement of his performance, under protest. Declaring a foul, and then allowing the athlete to take one extra attempt, or as in the case of A. Smith joining the 8 finalists, is like putting a poultice on a wooden leg.

10 November, 2023

The 400 m hurdles musketeers

A few years back (hey, it's already five years) I wrote an article entitled "The three musketeers of the 400 m hurdles". The literary reference is obvious, and the idea is that, just as in the novel of A. Dumas, there were four of them: A. Samba, K. Warholm and K. McMaster, joined by the R. Benjamin who had run in the NCAA championships an incredible 47.02 s. Samba was the one who inspired that post with his 46.98 s performance at the 2018 Paris Diamond League at a mere 0.2 seconds from the then world record. McMaster was second in that race and Warholm third. Warholm was the 2017 world champion, in a final where Samba stumbled on the 9th hurdle, finishing 7th and McMaster was disqualified in the heats for a lane infringement. In that article I was predicting that Samba, the best technician among the four, was the one who had the biggest chance for a world record. (My prediction turned out to be wrong). 

But then at around the same time a fifth "musketeer" made his appearance: A. Dos Santos, just 18 years old at the time. He confirmed his talent the next year in the Doha, 2019, World's finishing 7th. In that championship, Warholm won his second title, Benjamin was second and Samba third, McMaster missing out on the honours with a 4th place.

Then the epidemic perturbed everything and the athletes had to train without a clear objective. Samba was the main victim of that perturbation. He was already injured a first time in the summer of 2019, but managed to be present in Doha. (He had won the Asian Games in the same city in spring. In case you wish to look him up please bear in mind that his full name is Abderrahman Samba Alsaleck and contrary to what I say in my article he is not mauritanian: he was born in Saudi Arabia to a Mauritanian father and chose initially to compete for that country, before transferring allegiance to Qatar).

The 2021 Tokyo "2020" Olympics, saw all five hurdle stars present. They shared the first five places in the final, and inspired (half of) the article "The fabulous 400 m hurdles". McMaster was once again 4th and Samba, not quite back in top shape 5th. R. Benjamin was, once again second, while Dos Santos won his first major medal finishing third. And of course, everybody remembers the out-of-this-world 45.94 s world record of Warholm.

While things started getting back to normal in 2022, Samba injured himself once more and stayed out of competition the whole year. Warholm injured himself in his first outing and could barely get back in shape for the championships where he finished a distant 7th in the final. McMaster ran the heats but, feeling some discomfort, did not present himself to the semis. That turned out to be a good choice since less than a mont later he won the low hurdles in the Commonwealth Games (he had won the same event four years earlier). In Eugene Dos Santos won the world title ahead of Benjamin.

Dos  Santos was not going to repeat his 2022 feat in 2023. He injured himself early in the season and while he participated in Budapest he was far from top shape in the championships, finishing 5th. With Samba out and Warholm back in top condition I was going to focus on McMaster. He was, after all, the only one of the five "musketeers" without a global medal. (Don't get me wrong. The Commonwealth Games are a fine competition, perhaps on par with the European Championships, but they do not stand the comparison with the World Championships or the Olympics). 


Well, 2023 was going to be McMaster's year. He entered the final stretch in third position, but caught up with Benjamin at the last hurdle and went on to pass him in the final sprint. At long last he obtained his global medal and, cherry on the cake, it was a silver one. 

This is what I got when I looked up the results in the WA page

The end of the season was even more interesting. First, McMaster managed to beat Warholm in the Zürich Diamond League competition, 47.27 to 47.30, with Dos Santos third in 47.62 s. Then, In the Eugene DL final, Benjamin beat them both 46.39 to 46.53 for Warholm and 47.31 s for McMaster. And Samba in all this? Well, he came back in 2023 but did not manage to reach top shape early enough and so was absent from the world championships. But he was ready for the Asian Games, held in early October, and he successfully defended his title with 48.04 s. 

I will keep an eye open for the five musketeers next year in the Paris Olympics, hoping that they will be in great shape, able to reproduce (in any order) the Tokyo magic.