World Relays in Gaborone

I hadn't followed last year's World Relays. And, to tell the truth, had I done so I would have been irritated at the timorous, fainthearted and borderline cowardly choice of World Athletics concerning the mixed 4x100 m race. Fortunately, somewhere along the line they saw the light and opted for the proper relay composition, the only one I find acceptable: man-woman-man-woman.

If you have been following my blog you certainly know that I have been proposing the 4x100 mixed relay for close to ten years. In Gaborone we saw the race run properly for the first time in a global setting. And it was absolutely great. As expected, the coaches found a solution to the problem of speed-difference between men and women. If you haven't followed the competition I invite you to watch the highlights at the World Athletics youtube channel. The women start running when the men are more than 10 meters behind them while the men start when the women are practically at their shoulders. And what is interesting is that men passing the baton can slow down (a luxury they do not have in an all-men race) and make the transfer smooth. Just watch the video below, taken during the qualifying heats. 

E. Adjibi is passing the baton to M-E. Leclair. When the later cannot grasp it firmly he takes her arm and practically puts the baton in her hand. 

It is moments like this that make the 4x100  mixed relay a great event. Fortunately it is here to stay. And watching the Jamaican team being head and shoulders above the competition was a real treat.

Don't let yourselves be fooled by the photo-finish

The real difference was considerably greater: Tia Clayton is at least 6 meters ahead of A. Leduc. And speaking of the Clayton twins, who both ran in the mixed relay, I find the choice to write Ti. Clayton on both their bibs laughable. How can you tell who is who? (Tina is on the left and Tia on the right).

The world record was broken twice: first in the heats with 39.99 and then in the final with 39.62. Just to put this in the proper perpective the first time the men's 4x100 m record dipped inder the latter mark was in 1960 when the German team won the olympic title in Rome with 39.5, electronically timed at 39.60 s. (Mind you, the US team who won in the Melbourne, 1956, Olympics, had also run in 39.5 and there is an electronic time for that race at 39.60 s).

The Jamaican women's 4x100 relay had two great champions in their team, S. Jackson and E. Thompson-Herrah. It was a real pleasure to see the latter back after several years plagued by injuries. (And I noticed that Briana Williams made it back to the national team. She's an athlete I follow but I was starting to lose hope).

The women's 4x400 relay was won by the amazing team of Norway. When H. Jeager took the baton less than a meter behind B. Hervás it was clear that she was going to prevail. But the split that I found amazing was that of A. Iuel who ran, a below-50 s giving Norway the lead at the second exchange. I expect Iuel to fetch times under 54 s in her specialty (400 m hurdles) this summer.

The US team, in fact just a B-team, won the 4x400 mixed, the men's 4x100 and obtained the bronze in the mixed 4x100 m. But the event everybody was expecting was the men's 4x400 m relay, where Botswana is the reigning world champion. And they went on to win in front of their crowd. It was not an easy victory. Eppie passed the baton to Tebogo in first place but the latter was overtaken by an astonishing Pillay of South Africa. Ndori managed to bring Botswana back (just barely) to the lead and Kebinatsipi showed his immense talent by biding his time, not allowing the south african and australian runner to box him in, and sprinting to victory on the last stretch, winning in 2:54.47 (third performance of all times behind those of two US teams).

I was talking about the impressive split of L. Pillay, estimated (because splits are at best estimates) at 42.66. It was not the only one. Kebinatsipi was given a 43.09 s split. R. Holder of Australia had a split of 43.12. And speaking of splits there are three women with splits under 49 seconds, H. Jeager, Sh. Mawdsley and P. Sevilla. Although all three are great athletes I have trouble believing those splits (except perhaps for Jeager who has a personal best of 49.49, compared to 50.7 for Mawdsley and Sevilla), the altitude of Gaborone, 1014 m, notwithstanding.

A major disappointment was the performance of Belgium men's team. We have been accustomed to see them among the protagonists of the 4x400 m  but in Gaborone they finished at the last place of the final. Similarly the women's team of the Netherlands could do no better than 5th in the 4x400  final (and the remaining Dutch teams did not fare better). One thing that I have trouble understanding (and this goes back to this year's indoors) is why F. Bol is not part of the national relay. In Gaborone she could have made the difference between an "also ran" and a bronze medal.

All in all, this year’s World Relays were a thrilling and highly competitive event. With mixed relays now firmly established in the programme of all major championships—including this year’s Ultimate Athletics Championship—I am convinced we are in for many more exciting showdowns to come.

It's time for the real story of the Olympics

Unless you are living in an alternate reality you have certainly been exposed to the de Coubertin myth, a myth created by himself, peddled by a bunch of sycophants and sanctified by the multinational mastodon that has become the IOC. 

He was touted as the founder, father, saviour, reviver, restorer, creator, originator, initiator, pioneer, forerunner, progenitor, innovator, mastermind, prophet, inspirer, luminary, rebuilder, rejuvenator, patriarch, godfather of the Olympics. He was hailed as the guiding spirit of the modern Olympics, the architect of Olympic revival, the torchbearer of the Olympic ideal, the moral engineer of athletic renaissance. He is revered as the patron saint of modern sport. 

The list goes on and on, repeating ad nauseam the laudatory clichés and panegyrics for de Coubertin. But one should not swallow the platitudes of the de Coubertin hagiographies. The reality is totally different from what the baron himself pretends. In a letter, written in 1934, when people had (he hoped) forgotten the real history, he claims:

It has been said that Olympism was 'in the air' and likely to be revived somehow or other. It was not.

And just a month before, in an article celebrating the 40th anniversary of the re-establishment of the Olympic Games he wrote:

Vainement, des perfidies ultérieures s'exerceront-elles à faire prédominer la notion d'une création incertaine dont les étapes se seraient succédées timidement au hasard des circonstances. La vérité est différente. L'Olympisme est né cette fois tout équipé, comme Minerve! — avec son programme complet et sa géographie intégrale; la planète entière serait son domaine.

(In vain will later perfidies try to impose the notion of an uncertain creation whose stages would have timidly followed one another, at the whim of circumstance. The truth is otherwise. Olympism was born this time fully armed, like Minerva — with its complete program and its entire geography; the whole planet was to be its domain).

He implies that Olympism was born out of his own head, with no other parent, that there was really no "Olympism" in the air. 

Those are unashamed lies.

When Pierre de Coubertin visited William Brookes in Much Wenlock, England, in 1890, he knew nothing about the Olympics. His trip was driven by his interest in education, especially physical education and sport, a subject dear to Brookes at the time. Once in Much Wenlock, however, the baron stumbled upon the local Olympic revival movement, the very initiative that later inspired the modern Olympic Games. It was this movement that Coubertin would subsequently claim to have founded himself, single‑handedly.

I feel it is time for the real story of the Olympic revival to be told. There were, in the last half of the 19th century, two serious and significant national olympic revivals: one in Greece, and one in England. And, moreover these two revivals were interconnected. In a series of posts, I will tell their story, and how de Coubertin, in an act of perfidy (to use his own word), sought to expunge the Greek and English origins from Olympic history.

Sub-2 marathon: the writing was on the wall

That was the only occasion on which I disagreed with Ross Tucker. (If you read my blog, you know he is a leading South African sports physiologist for whom I have the greatest respect). In a post on The Science of Sport (with Jonathan Dugas), titled “The sub-2 hour marathon? Don’t hold your breath, just yet”, he offered a cautious outlook. Admittedly, the article dates back to 2013, but toward its end Tucker made some predictions. (For context, it was published just after W. Kipsang had lowered the world record by 15 seconds to 2:03:23). I repeat Tucker’s conclusion verbatim:

Bottom line is that talking about a sub-2 hour performance after seeing a 2:03:38 improve to a 2:03:23 is just not feasible.  The next barrier is 2:03, and I'm sure will go within five years.  Then we can begin to work towards 2:02, which will take another ten years, perhaps.

It's a great period for marathon running - every season, fall and spring, we get to anticipate a record at least twice.  2013 has delivered a successful attempt, but it shouldn't lull us into expectation that more of the same is just around the corner.

If I interpret Tucker’s timeline correctly, a sub-2 marathon might have been expected around 2040–45. On this occasion, however, his prediction proved overly conservative.

Running in London, last year’s top “out-of-stadium” athlete, S. Sawe, broke the barrier with a time that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago. His 1:59:30 not only improved K. Kiptum’s official record of 2:00:35 but also surpassed E. Kipchoge’s unofficial 1:59:41 exhibition performance. The first half was covered in 1:00:29; then, propelled by two blistering 5 km splits of 13:54 and 13:42 between 30 and 40 km, he completed the second half in 59:01.

He was not alone. Y. Kejelcha also broke the 2-hour barrier with 1:59:41, on his marathon debut (!). J. Kiplimo, meanwhile, dipped under the previous world record with 2:00:28. (I had expected the record to come from Kiplimo, and in a sense he delivered—only two runners finished ahead of him).

Sawe’s run was not the only record. In the women’s race (women-only), T. Assefa improved her own world record of 2:15:50, set in London the previous year, to 2:15:41. (She still holds a faster personal best of 2:11:53 from a mixed race). H. Obiri and J. Jepkosgei finished second and third in 2:15:53 and 2:15:55—both just seconds outside the previous world record.

I was not planning to publish anything before later this week but when I saw the results from London I could not resist the temptation.