Stop the presses: Tentoglou is world champion

I have been waiting a full year in order to write this headline. Two years ago, just after the Tokyo Olympics, I wrote a short article entitled "Stop the presses: Tentoglou is olympic champion".

And I was hoping, in 2022, to write today's title. But, at the very last moment, things went awry. Tentoglou started the final with an excellent 8.30 m at his second jump and improved that with 8.32 m at the fifth. At that point S. Ehammer was second with 8.16 m and M. Massó third with 8.15 m. Back at fifth place J. Wang (with a  personal best of 8.47 m from 2018) had an astonishing 8.36 m sixth attempt and Tentoglou could not respond (he managed just 8.20 on his last attempt and that was that). Tentoglou had to wait for the next year in order to have a go at the only gold missing from his collection.

It was not going to be easy. W. Pinnock (who was 9th in Eugene with 7.88 m) showed that he was going to be a formidable opponent. He jumped a world-lead 8.54 m in the qualifiers, while J. Wang was practically up to Eugene level with 8.34 m at the qualifiers. At the beginning of the third attempt Tentoglou was not among the 12 first, with a foul and a 7.95 m mediocre jump. Fortunately, he is someone who can keep his cool and with a 8.25 m jump he made it to the final.

Now, there is a lore concerning Tentoglou. If he fouls the first jump he is known to win the event. However his first jump in the final was going to be the exception. (Unless the qualifiers do count, in which case tradition is preserved). Tentoglou jumped a huge 8.50 m.

(Last year, I was commenting on his defeat that "given Tentoglou's talent, he should be able to land consistently at 8.50 m or beyond so as not to be vulnerable"). Unfortunately Pinnock's jump at the qualifiers was not just a lucky jump. He responded to Tentoglou's jump with a first attempt at 8.40 m and a second at exactly 8.50 m. Tentoglou was second on "count-back"! He reacted and landed at 8.39 m at his third attempt but that was just one centimetre short.

Entering the sixth attempt the atmosphere was really tense. First T. Gayle (the surprise 2019 world champion), who was fourth up to that time, jumped 8.27 m, the very same distance as his compatriot C. McLeod and passed him thanks to a second best jump of 8.17 m. (McLeod was slightly injured at that time and could not really respond). Then came of the turn of Tentoglou. And he had a humongous jump. It was clearly better than the  8.40 m he was needing. And when the jump was measured it was a title-winning 8.52 m. Pinnock tried to react and he had a great attempt at 8.38 m. But that was not sufficient. Tentoglou was the World Champion. 

So now, Tentoglou is the undisputed number-one long jumper of today. He has every possible medal. 

Does this mean that he is running out of objectives? Well, for one, he does not even have the greek national record (8.66 m). He could start by erasing Tsatoumas' name from the record list and move upwards from there. For somebody of Tentoglou's talent, sky is the limit.

On millisecond stupidity

I have written time and again on the absurdity of using milliseconds in order to break a tie. In one of the first articles of mine I had written:

The rules stipulate that “the athletes shall be placed in the order in which any part of their bodies (i.e. torso, as distinguished from the head, neck, arms, legs, hands or feet) reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line”. The difficulty lies in defining in a precise way and on a deformed photo what is precisely a “torso”. For an athlete dipping for the finish shoulders should definitely count but sometimes the judges cannot distinguish them from a part of the neck. For an athlete running at 10 m/s a millisecond corresponds to just 1 cm. Can we be sure of such a precision when a human eye is called upon to disentangle a difficult situation? My answer is a resounding “no”.

And, in case you are wondering,  in an other article of mine I propose a totally automatised method, without human intervention which would lead to far more reliable results.

But here I am not going to write about the ab(use) of milliseconds but about an incident during the 2023 World Championships and in particular the women's 100 m semi-final. There were three semi-final heats with the first two finishers getting automatically qualified for the final and the two best times among the remaining athletes joining them. S-A. Fraser-Price and T. Davis were qualified from the first heat, S. Jackson and M-J. TaLou from the second and J. Alfred and B. Brown from the third. S-C. Richardson had the best time among the remaining athletes, but, then, things got complicated. E. Svoboda and D. Asher-Smith had the next best time, 11.01 s. And when the composition of the final was first announced Asher-Smith was given a place in the final but not Svoboda. My first reaction was: "hell, they are using those pesky milliseconds again". But the problem is that the results on the live-stream were not given in milliseconds and the photo-finish was presented raw without the vertical guidelines used in order to determine the times of the athletes. However, a quarter of an hour later, a new table was presented giving both Svoboda and Asher-Smith a place in the final. I surmised that the polish team had filed a protest and, in view of a complicated situation, the organisers relented and accepted a final with nine athletes, something perfectly feasible in modern stadia. I refuse to think that that was not a case of "millisecond stupidity" but one of pure and simple stupidity, where the organisers did not realise that Svoboda had a right to the final before her team filed a protest.

However, today the official results and official photo-finish snapshots were available and I decided to have a closer look at them. And, lo and behold, a conspiracy theory started forming in my head. In the official results both Svoboda and Asher-Smith are given a time of 11.010 s, i.e. the same time down to millisecond precision. Then, how come the organisers qualified initially only Asher-Smith and not Svoboda? As I said I do not think they are stupid, on the contrary, I am convinced that they know what they are doing. So, I had a look at the official photo-finish snapshots. Here is the one of the first heat. 

There is nothing that can be said about the time of Svoboda: 11.010 s looks most accurate. And now look at the photo-finish of the third heat.

And compare the part of the body of Asher-Smith used in order to determine her time to the one of Brown or Frey. Clearly, the line should have been a trifle to the right, meaning her time could have been 11.009 s (or even 11.008 s). Here is where the conspiracy theory starts. Probably Asher-Smith was initially given a time of 11.009 s and, on the basis of this, she got qualified for the final at Svoboda's expense. But when the polish team protested and (quite justifiably) challenged the accuracy of the photo-finish, a Solomon's solution was deemed preferable and both athletes were granted the same time and qualified for the final. But then the photo-finish had to be doctored in order to support the decision. This is what I think happened and this is why the line determining Asher-Smith's time is slightly to the left.

Conspiracies notwithstanding, as long as the decision on delicate issues will depend on the judgement of the human eye, athletics will be losing credibility. We are seeing what is happening today with race-walking where everybody is running instead of walking. And with sprint level improving by the year, it is clear that there will be more and more "millisecond" issues. It's high time lord Sebastian, during his third and last term as World Athletics president, take a brave decision and do something useful for our sport, starting by replacing 19th century's photos by some 21st century technology.

Thus we frustrate de Coubertin

Women had to fight for their right to practice sports in competition. I have published a whole series of posts, The long and arduous road of women to the Olympics, devoted to their struggle for recognition. They had to fight tooth and nail during long decades before being, reluctantly, accepted as equal. 

De Coubertin was, from the outset, strongly opposed to female sport. For him "...the Olympic Games must be reserved for men". He argued that seeing women competing was "inappropriate". And he added that "the limited physical abilities of women made them ‘incapable’ of producing records in a highly competitive form of sport". And he had some crazy argument in favour of his opposition to female sports:

Would separate events be held for women, or would meets be held all together, without distinction as to sex, regardless of whether the competition is among individuals or teams? The second of these approaches would be logical, since the dogma of the equality of the sexes tends to expand. Yet this assumes the existence of co-ed clubs. There are hardly any such clubs now, with the exception of tennis and swimming. Even with co-ed clubs, ninety-five times out of a hundred, elimination rounds favour the men.

There you have it: women should not practice sports because men are stronger! This insidious idea that women are weaker than men survives till today. I have explained in several works of mine that women are not as strong as men, presenting quantitative arguments, but this should never be interpreted as a weakness. It is just an anatomical and physiological difference and it is taken into account precisely by having separate events for men and women (something that transgender and DSD athletes are trying to spoil, but, don't get me started on this point). 

For de Coubertin, the Olympic Games were the solemn and periodic exaltation of male athleticism, with the applause of women as a reward. De Coubertin was just the first in a long list of misogynist old twaddlers who opposed female sports using spurious, most often downright dishonest, arguments to support their point of view. Some of these arguments survive even today. You can see my article in the "Long and arduous" series for a technical discussion.

But in this post I will focus on the words of A. Brundage (who holds a prominent place in my Gallery of Shame). In a private correspondence he wrote:

"I think it is quite well known that I am lukewarm on most of the events for women for a number of reasons which I will not bother to expound because I probably will be out voted anyway. I think women's event should be confined to those appropriate for women; swimming, tennis, figure skating and fencing but certainly not shot putting".

I must confess that the last words of Brundage's statement have been bothering me since I ever read them. While female athletes are becoming more and more graceful as years go by  this does not appear to be true for shot putters. There are several lithesome champions in the other three throws but shot putters appear, as a whole, slightly overweight. (The same can be said for most men throwers as well, but, of course, nobody cares about the looks of men).

Brundage's argument has been gnawing at my mind but I was hating the idea to concede it. And then, while following the European U20 2023 championships I found the rare gem. Nina Chioma Ndubuisi is a german junior shot putter, a spinner. (This is somewhat astonishing, because Germany has been the last bastion of the gliding style, but I guess that Ndubuisi's physique is more suitable for spinning). 

She won the competition with 17.97 m, more than 1 m further than the second ranked and 2.5 m than the third. You can appreciate her style below. Being light allows her a great speed in the circle and she does not have to lower her throwing angle in order to preserve speed. (Of course, her performance is very far from the 20.54 m U20 world record, but the latter is held by the GDR thrower A. Kumbernuss from the good old, pre-doping control, days).

How will Ndubuisi evolve over the time? Will she decide to put on some weight in order to build more muscle and become a 20 m thrower? Nobody knows. But it remains that she is today the almost unique example of a slim champion female shot putter. And one counter-example suffices in order to demolish Brundage's argument. So I am happy that he was proven wrong even in this.

Now, don't get me wrong. This article should not be interpreted as a veiled criticism of the female shot putters who have a few extra kilos. First, the beauty ideals have seriously evolved since the time of de Coubertin and Brundage. And, second, all women athletes today, including shot putters, care about their looks and strive to look attractive. Unless they are doing their best to look ugly, for provocation, like R. Saunders.

Saunders is absent from international competition serving a ban for missed doping controls

My point, in this article is that nobody is allowed to tell women what they can and what they cannot do (and not only in sports). My only regret, in athletics, is that women picked up race-walking. But, then, I have the exact same feelings for men, so the parity is perfect.

(In case you wonder about the title of this post, I plagiarised, as I do from time to time, the title of a science-fiction  story. This time it's "Thus we frustrate Charlemagne", by R.A. Lafferty).

Changes for the coming World Championships

World Athletics has published a summary of changes that will be implemented for the first time during the Budapest, 2023, World Championships. Some of those are good, but some other less so.

Let me start with a measure that I have always considered unfair and which now has been abolished. It concerns middle distance events typically from 1500 to 5000 m. Previously there were two possibilities to advance to a semifinal (for the 1500 m) or to the final (for 1500, 3000 st and 5000 m): either by placing among the first or by having one among the best times (the number of the later varying from 2 for the 1500 m final to 6 for the steeplechase race). This of course led to an advantage for the athletes participating in the last heat. Knowing the best times already realised they could adopt a rhythm allowing them to obtain a better time in the end of the race, regardless of their position. This has now changed, the qualification to the next round will be by place only. This is a most sensible decision and will lead to more interesting qualification races.

Another new measure is that of athlete replacement. If an athlete withdraws from a semi-final or final he can be replaced by the next best ranked one. This is a great decision. Why leave an empty lane when there is someone of (more or less) comparable value eager to fill it? Classical swimming does this since ever. It is really the sensible thing to do. But World Athletics decided to spoil a good decision by a bad one. They announced that in case of replacement there will be no re-draw of lanes or re-ordering of attempts. I can understand this for field events. After all the order is reshuffled after the first three attempts. But I cannot get the logic of nor re-drawing the lanes. If we follow the logic of WA, an athlete entering a final with the 9th time may find himself running in the best lane after the withdrawal of the one with the best time. (In case you were wondering in classical swimming it is stipulated that "whenever possible, the event must be reseeded").

Another point is that of running under protest. This is not new. It has since quite some time been possible to run under protest if the starter had some doubts concerning the false start. However if the false start was indicated by a certified start information system there was no "running under protest" possibility. But the new measure of WA is muddying the waters. Here is what they write:

When the reaction time is close to the allowed limit (0.100), any movement may hardly be visible. Now in cases such as these, if the start referee feels the start in question requires further study, the referee may allow the athlete to run under protest. For any run under protest, a final decision is taken by the referee and in turn subject to an appeal to the jury. Athletes will not be able to run under protest if the false start has been detected by a fully operational start information system or in cases where the false start is clearly visible.

OK, we all know where this is coming from. A few months back I wrote about the infamous Allen incident, where D. Allen was disqualified for a false start, the measuring apparatus showing a time one millisecond smaller than the allowed one. 

Allen was denied a "run under protest" possibility, a most unfair decision. To be fair, the judges had applied the rules as they stood at the moment of the race. So, that was not a problem of the judges being too harsh: it had to do with the timorousness of World Athletics who do not dare replace the antiquated rule of 0.1 s by a more realistic one.

And so as not to finish on a negative note, here is the q-room. For races where there is still a qualification of time, i.e. for distances up to 800 m, the non-automatic qualifiers will have at their disposal a specially equipped room with comfortable chairs, TV screens, foam rollers and stretch bands, refreshments, as well as access to their coaches and kit. Spectators will be able to follow the athletes during their stay in the q-room through a tv circuit. This sounds interesting but I'll wait to see how the real q-room looks in Budapest.

If you are interested in all the (small) changes coming to the world championship, there are more details in the World Athletics article and you can find even more in the WA counsil decisions.

What is happening to the US throwers?

Every year I am following closely the US athletics trials. I have already explained in some article of mine that I consider the Trials counterproductive. In fact, most athletes try to be at their maximum at the Trials in order to secure a spot in the team (unless they are already world champions and have a by) and usually find themselves in a down-going trajectory when they it's time for the big appointment. Here I am not going to rehash the same point. Rather I would like to talk about some other observation of mine: perusing the results of the Trials one has the impression that (with some exceptions) the US throws are going down the drain. Let me elaborate. 

There are only three throws where there were more athletes with world championships qualifying standards than the three posts in the team: men's and women's shot put and women's hammer throw. In men's shot put the first eight finalists had the standard (to be fair, J. Geist who was 6th, reached the standard in the Trials competition). A surprise was the fourth place of J. Kovacs, who thus does not have a ticket for Budapest. In women's shot put the athletes who have the standard finished 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 15th(!). J. Davis finished third but does not have the standard (she is still a young thrower). C. Ealey finished 4th but since she is the reigning champion she would already  have had her place in the team even if Davis were qualified. In women's hammer throw the athletes with the standard finished 1st (the reigning world champion B. Andersen), 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th, with J. Shippee, placing 4th and reaching the standard during the competition (which may give her a place in the team).

And that's it. All the rest is a disaster. There was not a single competitor with the qualifying standard in men's javelin. The women's event did not fare better: The only athlete with the standard, A. Ince, finished 6th. I wonder whether they will qualify her for the world championships team. K. Winger (who was 2nd in the Eugene, 2022, World's and who set a US record of 68.11 m the same year) who retired at the end of last year's season will not be easily replaced. She in the 12th performer of all times. B. Greer holds the 15th place for men, the only 90+ m US athlete.  

I could not find a free photo of Greer from the Olympics,

so I opted for this one, with the funny face-paint

I remember B. Greer from the 2004, Athens, Olympics. He threw a humongous 87.25 m in the qualifiers, which made him the de facto favourite of the event. But in the final he could do not better than 74.36 m, finishing 12th. To be fair, he had a knee injury from June but, still, his throw in the qualifiers would have sufficed for the gold medal, won by A. Thorkildsen with 86.50 m.

The situation in men's hammer throw is not at all similar to that of the women's. There is actually only one 80+ m thrower in the US, R. Winkler and till now he hasn't obtained anything better than a place in the final in the world championships. (He is the historically 20th performer of the event).

Only one athlete had the standard in men's discus: S. Mattis who finished first of the Trials. V. Allman was the only woman discus thrower coming to the Trials with a qualifying standard but L. Tausaga managed to throw beyond the 64.20 m limit on her last throw, securing a place in the team.

All in all, there are five qualifiable athletes in five events. This is really a very low number, given the potential of the US. To tell the truth I have trouble understanding the infatuation of the US throwers with shot put. Clearly the advent of the rotational style opened the events to a wholly new population of throwers who (with the notable exception of R. Grouser) tend to be more "compact". But, still, I have trouble understanding the disinterest for an event like the discus throw where the US throwers have shined. Where is the legacy of the great A. Oerter, of J. Silvester (first man beyond 60 m), of M. Wilkins (olympic champion in 1976 and first man beyond 70 m)? The last US medal in a major championships goes back to 1999 with the victory of A. Washington in Seville. It is time american coaches did something in order to stop this decline.