The World 2026 indoors

Let us start with the most important result of the championship, the men’s heptathlon world record. To tell the truth, following S. Ehammer during the event I had my doubts up to the pole vault. I have already seen him foul out in this event but this time he dominated it and went on to break Eaton’s record with 6670 points. He had taken the lead from the first event and never relinquished. For those who may wonder, no, I don’t think that he can repeat this feat with the decathlon world record: his throws are so‑so and I don’t believe that he has the stamina for the two‑day ordeal.

Baldwin and Garland had never had a chance at gold but they secured silver and bronze respectively. M. Gletty was a real disappointment. He was in contention for a medal up to the pole vault and then he fouled out. I have trouble understanding the logic of starting at 4.80 m when your season best is just 5.00 m. And I was expecting something better from J. Hauttekeete after the 6212 points he scored this February.

When A. Hall decided to participate in the World Indoors I am sure she was expecting to go back home with the gold medal. And while things started perfectly with an excellent 60 m hurdles, the situation became somewhat complicated at the high jump where she could do no better than 1.84 m (to Dokter’s 1.87 m). But where I realised that she was not going to win was when she fouled her second shot put throw (at around 14.50 m). Then came the long jump where she does not excel and S. Dokter practically sealed her victory with a 6.52 m jump. She had only to hang on in the 800 m where she has a 2:11 personal best. Hall ran a respectable 2:06.32 but it was not enough for gold. Dokter was world champion with 4888 points, 28 points more than Hall. K. O’Connor continues her progression with an excellent 4839 score at third place. A. Sulek‑Schubert is back but she was not at the same level as the three medallists, and had to content herself with a fourth place at 4638 points (very far from her 5014 personal best).

But let’s go back to the non‑combined events. Z. Dosso upgraded her last year’s silver in women’s 60 m to gold, beating the Olympic 100 m champion, J. Alfred, along the way. I was somewhat disappointed by the 8th place of P. Van der Weken in the final. I was expecting her to fight for the medals. (And I was expecting A. Hunt to make the final but she finished just outside it in the semis). The men’s 60 m went to newcomer J. Anthony who won with 6.41 s. (Anthony is not quite unknown. He ran a very slightly windy 9.75 s 100 m last year). K. Thompson was once more (after the Olympics and World outdoors) second. Seeing the times of the best today’s sprinters who have trouble going under 6.40 s one can wonder how Ch. Coleman did manage his 6.34 s world record.

The men’s 60 m hurdles reserved a pleasant surprise for the local crowd. T. Cunningham had dominated the heats and semis signing with 7.35 s the eighth best performance of all time. But in the final he could do no better than third with 7.43 behind J. Szymanski who won with 7.40 and E. Llopis, 7.42 s. D. Beard could not run the final for which he was qualified and according to the new rules was replaced by the 9th athlete, F. Le Roux, (an athlete it will be interesting to follow in the future). D. Charlton signed the second world record of the championships, with 7.65 s, equaling her performance from Glasgow. World champion D. Kambundji was among the favourites of the race (if not 'the' favourite) but, in the end, she went home without a medal finishing fourth. N. Visser, with her silver medal in 7.73 at 1/100th off her personal best, can forget last year’s disappointment (when she finished sixth in Nanjing). And P. Skrzyszowska added another bronze to her collection, after the one she had won in Glasgow.

The 400 m introduced a new formula and I must say that I cannot make up my mind whether I do like it or not. There are two finals of four and the classification is based on the times registered. In the men’s race the three medals went to the first three of the second final, with Ch. Morales‑Williams winning the title in 44.76 s ahead of Kh. McRae and J. Richards. (I will have to keep an eye open for Morales‑Williams, he has real potential). The women’s race was more complicated. N. Bukowiecka won the first final in 50.83 with L. Klaver second in 51.02 s. And then L. Manuel (an athlete I am following since her first appearance) went on to win the second final in 50.76 s obtaining the world title. Bukowiecka was heard commenting that, had they run together, the result might have been different. Perhaps she’s right, but, be that as it may, I am very happy for Manuel’s victory. It was funny to see W. Venlogh, Olympic and world champion with the US 4×400 team, run for Haiti. (And I am asking, will Rai Benjamin, at the end of his career, go back to Antigua and Barbuda where he started in 2013). I was expecting H. Jeager to shine in the final. She had dominated the semis with 50.95 s but in the final, before the last stretch she stepped on the inside of the track, falling out of medal contention.

Three UK gold medalists: Hunter-Bell, Caudery and Hodgkinson

K. Hodgkinson took the lead in the women’s 800 m and never relinquished it, winning with 1:55.30, well ahead of A. Werro, second with 1:56.64. Well, this dominance is not astonishing for an athlete who one month before the World Championships had signed a 1:54.87 world‑record time. What was astonishing was the victory of 17‑year‑old C. Lutkenhaus who won the men’s 800 m in 1:44.24 beating E. Crestan (who had to content himself once more, after Nanjing, with silver) and M. Attaoui (who had recently signed a European record over 1000 m). Lutkenhaus made up for last year's disappointment at the World's. G. Hunter‑Bell won her first global title (after Olympic bronze and world silver) in women’s 1500 m with 3:58.53 beating J. Hull and N. Hiltz. A. Guillemot was just outside the medals but managed to dip under 4 minutes for a French indoor record.

The men’s race was a slow, tactical one. M. Garcia took an early lead and added the 1500 m title to the one for 800 m he won in 2022. World outdoors champion I. Nader could not repeat his Tokyo feat and had to settle for silver, 3:40.06 to 3:39.63. J. Kerr won the men’s 3000 m in 7:35.56 thanks to a devastating sprint (and it was funny to see athletes like A. Habz and G. Beamish being relegated to the role of “also‑runs”). The women’s 3000 m was a slow one won by N. Batocletti in 8:57.64 who obtained her first major title after Olympic and world silver. E. Mackay was second and J. Hull (who had a very busy weekend) third. E. Hailu who was expected to be among the protagonists finished a disappointing sixth.

Men’s high jump was won by O. Doroshchuk in 2.30 m. A minor surprise was the silver medal of E. Portillo who jumped a personal best of 2.30 m at his third attempt, obtaining his first global medal. While the men's event was a rather uninteresting one the women’s event was quite the opposite. Up to 1.99 m there were four athletes having cleared all heights at their first attempt. However Y. Levchenko (who is definitely back), A. Topic (who has recently joined the 2 m club) and N. Olyslagers (perhaps not in the same shape as last year) could not jump 2.01 and thus Y. Mahuchikh, who cleared it at her first attempt, won the event while the remaining three shared the silver medal. M. Zodzik, last year’s silver medallist at the World Championships, could not go beyond 1.93 m, just as E. Patterson who has not jumped over 2 m since 2022 (when she won the world title).

Women’s pole vault was even more interesting with 7 athletes having passed 4.70 m. However 4.80 proved fatal to most of them. So I. Ayris, A. Moser and A. Svabikova had to share bronze while T. Sutej obtained silver with her 4.80 m jump. The gold medal went to M. Caudery, who is back in shape after last year’s injury, and who managed 4.85 m. (I was somewhat disappointed by the 7th place of M.J. Bonnin but I must admit that 4.70 m is a respectable performance). It is funny that both men’s and women’s winners of pole vault did not pursue their efforts once they had secured victory. And in the case of men, while on paper Duplantis’s 6.25 m may appear way higher than the 6.05 m of Karalis, the way the event unfolded was quite different from the numbers. When the bar was raised at 6 m there were 8 athletes remaining. But only Duplantis, Karalis and Marschall could pass this bar. (Guttormsen gambled by going directly to 6.05 but without success). Karalis secured second place with 6.05 m while Marschall failed. And then started his game Karalis-Duplantis. At 6.10 and 6.15 m with Duplantis jumping first, Karalis decided each time to pass and went directly to 6.20 m. Failing there once, he moved to 6.25 m. Duplantis passed on his first attempt, Karalis failed and that was that. But it is the first time in recent memory that Duplantis has met substantial resistance. Having somebody of 6.20 value competing with Mondo is adding an extra spice to pole vault competitions.

A. De Sousa won the women’s long jump with 6.92 m ahead of L. Iapichino 6.87 and N. Linares 6.80 m. A. Kälin who was expected to be among the protagonists could do no better than 6.31 m finishing last. (And should I repeat my disappointment for M. Gardasevic’s 13th place? It is really bizarre that she never manages to excel at major events). The men’s long jump was one of the best events we have seen these last years. The big favourite was B. Saraboyukov but in the end he had to settle for bronze despite jumping 8.31 m. M. Furlani obtained silver with 8.39 m but the gold went to G. Baldé who snatched it with his last attempt, 8.46 m. The first 8 jumpers were over 8.00 m. M. Tentoglou finished sixth with 8.19 m. While some people may find this disappointing, my take is that Tentoglou is back from last year’s injury and could return to 8.50 m jumps this summer. One jump at 17.47 m sufficed for A. Diaz‑Hernández to win the men’s triple jump with J. Scott and M. Triki taking silver and bronze with 17.33 and 17.30 m. The women’s triple jump was won by L. Pérez‑Hernández with 14.95 m. Y. Rojas is definitely back and obtained silver with 14.86. Those who read my blog must remember that I did not particularly like Rojas. But I am changing attitude seeing the enormous effort she made in order to come back. (And I have the impression that her style is evolving towards a more classical one; in any case much nicer to the eyes compared with her previous brute‑velocity‑based one). Two great ladies of the horizontal jumps were present in the final: Olympic and world champion Th. LaFond and world champion (of long jump) I. Španović, who has devoted the end of her career to triple jump. They finished 5th and 6th respectively but one should never underestimate them. And I will keep an eye open for newcomer S. Sarr who made me a real impression. With some style adjustments she is a 15+ jumper.

The women shot put saw world leader J. Schilder go home without a medal. She was weeping in the throwing circle after her last throw. The event was won by Ch. Jackson with 20.14 m, S. Mitton having to settle for second with 19.78, followed by A. Johansson 19.75 m. T. Walsh obtained his 7th medal in 7 participations in the World Indoor Championships. And it was his fourth gold. He threw 21.82 m and was followed by J. Geist and R. Stein 21.64 and 21.49 m. World leader L. Fabbri was once again disappointing finishing 7th with 20.92 m.

The men’s 4×400 relay was won by the US ahead of the ever‑present Belgium 3:01.52 to 3:03.29. The women’s race was also won by the US but with a very slight margin, 3:25.81 to the Netherlands 3:26.00 and Spain’s 3:26.04. It is remarkable that Poland could not bring a medal home, finishing fourth in 3:26.17. Concerning the team of Holland I wonder why Bol decided to sit out this championship. Had she ran they would have easily won finishing in a time under 3:25. (And I am questioning the sagacity of her decision to move up to the 800 m just the year where Hodgkinson is in world‑record form and McLaughlin is not running due to pregnancy. Bol could have dominated the hurdles one more year. But the season has just started and I guess that we have to wait and see).

I left the 4×400 relay for last. It was one of the most interesting races. J. Sacoor ran a superb first leg and passed the baton to I. Hanssens unimpeded. Behind him D. Kennedy of Jamaica was fighting with J. O’Bryant of the US. But since the latter was ahead at 200 m the US team was placed on the inside with Jamaica next to them. Kennedy coming out of the turn on the inside did not wish to leave the advantage to O’Bryant and thus when they arrived at the exchange he tried to pass the baton in front of the latter. Sh. Anderson took the baton but in the process she pushed S. Reifenrath of the US who fell on the track and behind them chaos ensued. K. Blake of the Netherlands fell before passing the baton to M. Van der Schoot and, while K. Duqszyński of Poland also fell, he at least had managed to give the relay to A. Gryc. The one team that was not hindered by all this was that of Spain with M. Fernández arriving at last position and allowing P. Sevilla to avoid the traffic jam. In the end Belgium won, as expected, in 3:15.60, Spain finished second and Poland was promoted to third after Jamaica was (understandably) disqualified. If you wish to really appreciate the race I suggest that you track down the video and see for yourself.

All in all it was an interesting championship, announcing a rich outdoors season.

Dispelling myths about distance running

The followers of my blog know that I am a fan of the Act of Manliness newsletter. As I explained, on more than one occasions, the AoM site (and newsletter) is not at all macho. It recognises simply that roughly 50% of us are men and share common interests and preoccupations. But this does not prevent the editors from publishing many articles that can be of equal interest to men and women. It's one of those articles that has inspired this post of mine. 

The content was unashamedly filched from an article by Jason Fitzerald. Jason is a runner, coach and podcaster. He has a 2:39 personal best in the marathon. He runs the Strength Running Podcast and the website Strength Running. His profile highlights that he has "coached thousands of runners to faster finishing times and fewer injuries with his results-oriented coaching philosophy". He points out that running philosophy has changed over the past half-century. At some point, when running became popular (60s?, 70s?) people started running a lot at a slow pace (in contrast to what was the practice up to that point of interval training). However, as running science matured, it became clear that a more balanced approach was necessary, one that includes lifting weights, sprinting, and working on coordination. Instead of slow jogging we have now high-intensity interval training and Tabata workouts. (Just in case you are wondering, the  latter are ultra-short, maximal-effort bursts with 20 seconds of all-out exercise followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated for 8 rounds to a total of 4 minutes per set. A full session may chain 4 to 5 such sets with one-minute recovery between each set). 

So what are the running-related myths that S. Fitzerald wishes to dispel?

First, running decreases muscle mass. While there is some truth in this (in particular for novices with no aerobic exercise experience) running does not "eat muscle". It simply prevents additional muscle gain. Elite runners are not super-slim because they run a lot: they have the right body type from the outset, one that, combined with training, has allowed them to join the elite.

Second, running requires no skill. This is plain wrong. Training requires coordination and strength. Beginner runners start with a quite un-economical gait, then gradually improve and refine it, adapting it to their morphology, becoming more economical runners.

Third, runners are weak. Fitzgerald insists that it is runners who only run that are truly weak.  A training plan should include more than running with warm-up drills, strength exercises, dynamic stretches and mobility exercises. While aiming at reaching aerobic fitness, a runner should not neglect the structural fitness of tendons and muscles.

Fourth, running increases inflammation and chronic stress. A systemic inflammation can indeed compromise the immune system. However this does not happen unless one over-trains. In fact, effective training should increase inflammation to promote the adaptation response. What one should do is to balance hard training with recovery. 

Five, running doesn’t promote fat loss. This is a major misconception. As shown repeatedly in scientific studies, aerobic exercises, like running, are the most efficient way to burn fat. But, clearly a healthy, balanced diet is critical for fat loss. Running aids in reaching an ideal weight, yet overeating can easily undo those gains.

Running is one of the best forms of exercise available to build fitness. But as Fitzerald points out, both beginners and experienced runners should "stick to a well-rounded training program that embraces variety, plenty of strength exercises, and a holistic approach to distance running".

The transgender question is still not settled

Those who read my blog know that there are certain points on which I am intransigent, and foremost among them is the transgender question. For me, there is no question that men, masquerading as women, should be included in women’s sports categories. I have expressed this view repeatedly in writing on this blog. I have publicly praised Lord Sebastian for his courageous decision to ban transwomen from women’s sports. I rejoiced when the President of the United States signed Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” to end what I call “transgender insanity”. As I have written time and again, women fought hard to gain access to sports — and we should not let mediocre men spoil the integrity of those sports.

Unfortunately, many people, especially those whom we might call enlightened progressives, are campaigning for the inclusion of men in women’s sports, using the fallacious argument that gender, not sex, should determine eligibility. And there are many misguided women among them! The situation was further aggravated when the IOC, much like Pontius Pilate, chose to wash its hands of the transgender eligibility issue. Before the Paris 2024 Olympics, it abandoned a unified policy and adopted a framework that left such decisions to individual sports federations. As a result, two biologically male athletes were allowed to compete in women’s boxing.

It is important to note that the regulatory landscape of boxing was particularly complex at that time. One year before the Games, the sport was still under the authority of the International Boxing Association (IBA). However, after governance failures led to its suspension in 2019, the IOC formally decertified the IBA in June 2023 and took over the organization of Olympic qualifiers and the event itself. Although the IBA had previously disqualified Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting over eligibility concerns, the IOC permitted both to compete in Paris—with predictable controversy following. Since 2025, the IOC has recognized the newly established World Boxing federation as the sport’s international governing body. One of the first measures of WB was the announcement of systematic testing for the SRY gene as part of eligibility screening. Still, Khelif who, in a February 2026 article in l'Equipe, confirmed that she has the SRY gene, is planning to participate in the 2028, Los Angeles, Olympics. But since the WR is screening for the gene, Khelif will not even be allowed to take part in the qualifiers. Imane Khelif is not transgender: she is male. (I find the last sentence somewhat bizarre, but since Khelif has a female phenotype and maintains that she is a woman I will, as a courtesy, use the female pronoun). 

I do not know whether the IOC, after the outcry following the Paris boxing scandal and profiting from the change of presidency will change their cowardly stance. To tell the truth, I am not overly optimistic, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The main reason I am revisiting the transgender question is that there are regularly published supposedly scientific papers advocating for the inclusion of transgender men in women’s sports. The IOC’s 2021 Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non‑Discrimination already adopts a “no presumption of advantage” principle, rejecting blanket testosterone thresholds for transgender athletes. These assumptions tend to downplay the lasting effects of male puberty on strength, muscle mass, and overall physiology. Testosterone suppression does reduce muscle mass and strength and brings hemoglobin levels into the female range. However, the biomechanical and performance advantages acquired during male puberty are not fully eliminated. Despite this, the IOC chose to prioritize inclusion, effectively allowing biologically male athletes to compete against women. This time, a new publication brought to my attention in Ross Tucker’s podcast prompted me to write on the topic again. (If you follow my blog, you will already know who Ross Tucker is).

The paper in question was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine under the title “Body composition and physical fitness in transgender versus cisgender individuals: a systematic review with meta‑analysis”. What was flabbergasting was their conclusion:

While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass [my addition: which is a proxy for muscle] than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence ...[omitted]... does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.

It is one of those dubious studies, on transgender individuals, published in the last three or four years, that have been co‑opted into debates about elite sport. Ross Tucker thoroughly dismantles it: the article takes weak primary studies, applies technically sound statistics for credibility, and produces an outcome that, in practice, means very little. Yet this does not stop the authors from claiming that “the current data do not justify blanket bans”. The problem lies in the studies used as the basis for this meta‑analysis. A typical pitfall is to compare men who identify as women to elite women athletes. But this is not the correct way to conduct the comparison. In a marathon, the top 30 men are about 10–12% faster than the top 30 women. However, when one moves further back in the field, there are many men who are slower and weaker than many women. In a local race, perhaps 30%, or even 50%, of the men are beaten by the first woman. The best women are excellent athletes in the human race. The same logic applies to age categories. The best junior sprinter is often faster than most adult men. Does this mean that being young is not a disadvantage? Should we then allow adult athletes to compete in junior categories on the grounds that they “feel young”? 

Tucker insists that if we are to require studies to be robust and have good scientific integrity, one of the prerequisites is that they consider comparable slices of the male and female populations. Overlooking this, the conclusion can easily be that males are similar to females. He finishes by expressing the hope that the next time we speak about transgender athletes, it will be to report that the IOC has finally aligned its policies with the reality of biology and sport. Amen to this.