Diamond League money prizes

In a recent article Wanda Diamond League announced that the prize money distributed to athletes during the series and the final will get a boost, increasing by almost 30 %. 

Reading the article I realised that I did not know precisely what are the financial conditions now. (Unfortunately the article does not give any precision concerning next year). So I tracked down the prize list of this year's Diamond League. 

Perusing the list it is clear that the prizes increase more or less exponentially. And I decided to check this. In the case of the series this is indeed the case: the increase of the prize with position follows closely an exponential curve. 

However, when it comes to the final, the agreement with the exponential hypothesis ceases to be satisfactory (black dots in the figure below). In particular, the reward of the athlete classified second is seriously underestimated. Thus, I decided to perform a small adjustment by fixing the amount of the prize for the winner and the 8th finisher and obtaining the best fit of the data with an exponential. Once this was done I calculated the prizes for all 8 finalists, rounding them to the nearest 100 dollars, keeping the total sum spent equal to what it was before and trying to be as close as possible to the exponential curve (white dots in the figure below).

The values I obtained are quite realistic. Here is the list

Clearly Wanda must reevaluate the amount for the athlete who comes second and perform a few more adjustments if they wish to be as fair as in the case of the Diamond League series. 

As to why, one of the two prize lists follows closely an exponential and not the other, well, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps different persons were involved. Be that as it may, with the total prize amount being reevaluated next year, this is the perfect time to remedy a somewhat unfair prize allocation.

Field events at the Paris Olympics

I have given a (more or less) detailed account of the men's long jump competition in my "Stop the presses" article, so there is no point in elaborating further here. Instead I can start with the women's event. My preferred long-jumper, world champion I. Spanovic (the name "Vuleta" was short-lived; she divorced in December) did not manage to reach the final. Fortunately another athlete I really like, T. Davis, dominated the event with 7.10 m, depriving M. Mihambo (6.98 m) of a second olympic title. J. Moore managed something unique in my memory of major championships (unless we count C. Ibargüen's gold medals at the 2018 CAC Games), obtaining bronze medals in both the long (6.96 m)  and triple jumps (14.67 m). L. Iapichino improved her position compared to last year's World's, but she was still outside the medals.

In the absence of Y. Rojas the women's triple jump appeared open. Well, not for me. I was quite confident in the talent of T. LaFond (who, for me, is the best technician of the event) and I was not proven wrong. With 15.02 m she added the olympic title to her world (indoor) one. S. Ricketts was second with 14.67 m. M. Bekh-Romanchuk, last year's silver world medalist, could not do better than 13.98 m in the final. Those who follow my blog may remember the name of A. Smith, a jamaican long- and triple-jumper, and her last year's misadventure in the long jump world final. She was the second jumper to make the two finals in Paris, finishing 8th in long jump and 7th in the triple.

Thea-Lafond kinogram

I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed by the men's triple jump results. The battle between J. Díaz and P. Pichardo, never took place. One would have expected something better (but I admit that I am asking for too much) than 17.86 and 17.84 m. In the end three cubans trusted the three places on the podium, representing Spain, Portugal and Italy (A. Díaz with 17.64 m). Teen-age talent J. Hibbert (who made a sensation last year) was just outside the medals with 17.61 m, just like world champion H.-F. Zango (17.50 m). 

Women's high jump was a bizarre affair. E. Patterson and I. Herashchenko tied in third place at 1.95 m (beating V. Cunningham on count-back) and only N. Olyslagers and Y. Machuchikh continued to 2.00 m. Olyslagers succeeded at her third attempt, Machuchikh having gone over at her first. Up to that height the latter has shown an incredible ease and one would reasonably expect something far better. But something started going wrong at that height. Olyslagers bowed out at 2.02 and Machuchikh having failed in her first two attempts raised the bar at 2.04 m and ... failed again. Since 1980 and S. Simeoni's victory with 1.97 m only R. Beitia's title in Rio (1.97 m) was obtained with such a low performance. 

I will try to forget the men's high jump. The gold medalist, H. Kerr, gave a proof of his absence of personality. He had witnessed the real camaraderie of Tamberi and Barshim who shared gold in Tokyo. But when he tied at first place with S. McEwen at 2.36 m, he opted for a jump-off, not wishing to share gold. Of course, everything was by the book, but, personally, I am disgusted at this attitude. (To tell the truth, judging by the body language of both jumpers I initially thought that it was McEwen who asked for the jump-off. It was only the next day that I found out what had really happened). In case you are wondering Barshim was third with 2.34 m and Tamberi, suffering from some kidney problem, could only jump 2.22 m. 

I gave details on men's pole vault in my "stop the presses" article but I did not mention the 6.25 m world record of A. Duplantis. Well, it was a short-lived one. It was improved to 6.26 m less than a month later in the same competition where Karalis passed for the first time 6 m (joining the elite of 20-something 6-plussers) a competition which saw three jumpers over 6 m (Kendricks also cleared 6 m). 

The women's pole vault was a gruelling affair. The qualification standard was fixed at 4.70 m. However when the bar was raised at 4.55 m only 11 athletes passed and, what is really rare, there were 9 athletes who had passed 4.40 m at their first attempt and missed 4.55. Not having the possibility, given the rules, to break such a tie the organisers qualified all 20 athletes for the final. Among the qualification "victims" where the two british jumpers Bradshaw and Caudery, the latter fouling out at her initial height of 4.55 m. 

A. Adamopoulou was injured and could not participate, but the remaining 19 entered a final where, to avoid the event finishing at midnight, the initial bar was placed at 4.40 m and the next ones at 4.60, 4 70 and 4.80 m. Only 5 jumpers remained at that height and 4.85 m was enough for the podium. A. Newman took bronze beaten on count-back by K. Moon. N. Kennedy passed 4.90 m on her first try, winning the olympic gold after having shared the world one  last year. It is clear that something has to be done in order to avoid situations such as the one in Paris. The simplest solution would be to decide that for the vertical jumps only 12 athletes can qualify for the final and, if there is a tie in the last places leading potentially to the qualification of more than 12, the tie is broken following the procedure used for the first place. 

I concluded my report on the field events of this year's Europeans saying that "I am not particularly optimistic about the chances of the European throwers at the Olympics". Unfortunately my prediction turned out to be true (just 6 medals out of 24 possible). And it would have been worse were it not for an exceptional thrower I had not noticed before. But let us start at the beginning. 

In women's shot, put the number-one favourite, C. Ealey-Jackson failed to qualify for the final. This left S. Milton, the world leader, without dangerous opponents. But in the final Milton committed suicide landing her first two throws at 17 m and fouling her third, a 20+ that would have sufficed for first place. M. Wesche led the competition up to the last throw where Y. Ogunleye send her shot at 20 m winning gold. Ogunleye was silver medalist at this year's world indoors and bronze medalist at the Europeans, but somehow I managed to miss her. Last year I wrote an article on a lithe young thrower I had noticed during the European U20 championships, N.C. Ndubuisi. Well, Y. Ogunleye is built in the same model with just 67 kg for 1.83 m of stature. One can have no better proof that shot putters do not have to be fat  in order to throw far. The new olympic champion is one more example proving De Coubertin and Brundage wrong. 

In the men's shot put R. Crouser did not come to Paris as the incontestable favourite. However when the final started, things changed immediately. With a massive heave at 22.64 m (subsequently improved to 22.90 m) he took the lead and was never menaced. J. Covacs secured the silver medal at his last throw and on count-back as R. Campbell had also thrown 22.15 m. L. Fabri was very far from his year's best and with 21.70m finished at 5th place, P. Otterdahl being pushed out of the medals despite a 22.03 m throw at his 6th attempt. T. Walsh who was on the podium in the last two Olympics was injured and could not have a valid throw in the final.

The men discus reserved a great surprise. World recordman M. Alekna took command of the event with a throw at 69.97 m breaking the olympic record held by his father, Virgilijus (69.89 m, from the 2004, Athens, Olympics). After the first three throws Alekna was leading with Denny and Ceh at second and third positions respectively. And then, R. Stona, a practically unknown jamaican (there were three jamaicans in the final), whose best result was a 6th place in the 2022 Commonwealth Games, sent the discus to precisely 70 m winning the event. Of course Stona, who lives and trains in the US had a 69+ personal best from earlier this year, so his throw was not totally unrealistic. Still his victory was a major surprise. 

Speaking of surprise victories, the women's discus has a tradition of such, since the last two World Championships were won in what I consider a "lucky" throw. (The case of L. Tausaga is particularly interesting: she obtained the qualifying standard during her last throw in the US Trials and then, in Budapest, she was trailing in 6th position when she unleashed a 69.49 m throw, beating V. Allman by 26 cm. This year she failed to qualify for the final of the US Trials.). In Paris the situation went back to normal. V. Allman took the lead from her first throw, all her valid throws being longer than those of F. Bin and S. Elkasevic-Perkovic who had 67.51 m as best throw, Bin winning on count-back.

Canada dominated the hammer throw. E. Katzberg confirmed his position as the best hammer thrower in the world, winning with 84.12 m, four metres more than the second. All of a sudden the out-of-this-world, almost 40 years old, record of Y. Sedykh (86.74 m) does not seem unattainable. A. Wlodarczyk participated in her fourth Olympics, after having won the previous three. Unfortunately she could not add a fourth gold to her collection and in fact missed bronze for a mere 4 cm. Be that as it may, she is the greatest female hammer thrower we have even seen (and I cannot understand why World Athletics have systematically snubbed her). World leader B. Andersen managed to eliminate herself from the competition, failing to qualify in the US Trials. Canadian, C. Rogers (the number-two in the world this year) was the natural favourite and went on to win easily with a 76.97 m throw.

The men's javelin throw was a great competition and an occasion for the greek tv commentators to give another proof of their ignorance. When A. Nadeem threw a humongous 92.97 m (improving the olympic record and winning the event) they explained that he had improved his record by 6 metres, simply forgetting that two years ago he had won the Commonwealth Games with 90.18 m. The two "veterans" of the event Y. Yego and K. Walcott were present, finishing 5th and 7th in the final. The "youngster" of the event A. Peters was once more on the podium, finishing third with 88.54 m.  (He was going to throw beyond 90 m a month later). N. Chopra, has apparently a psychological problem with the 90 m barrier. He had thrown beyond 88 m already in 2018 and he is still unable to get a 90+ performance. In Paris he was second with 89.49 m. (But he has the potential for a great throw and he is still young, so there is always hope).

A kinogram of McKenzie-Little

I left for the end the women's javelin throw. Unfortunately the discipline is becoming a real disaster. Winning olympic gold with 65.80 m is ridiculous. Frankly, I don't think that H. Kitaguchi is a great thrower. She is a 66-67 m thrower but she is an excellent competitor who profited from the state of the discipline winning world and olympic titles. M. Andrejczyk who was the most promising among the new generation may never realise her potential. And I start being anxious about the future of E. Tzengko. Her european 2022 title did not lead to the evolution one would have expected. F. Ruiz-Hurtado, who almost created the surprise in last year's World's, is a tad too old. The only hope is A. Villagos, but she managed to botch her Paris competition, finishing 13th in the qualifiers. At least I discovered in Paris an athlete I have never seen before, J-A van Dyk, from South Africa who obtained silver. 

I don't know what can be done in order to improve the situation. Introducing a lighter javelin, say of 500 gr, will barely add 5 m to the performances, so this is not a solution.  Thus, as long as the discipline is stagnating, every women's javelin competition will be a source of frustration for me.  

The future of Athletics ‽

Last week I got a mail from World Athletics with the conceited title "Help shape the future of Athletics".

It was announcing a competition that was going to take place on September 1st in Fribourg where some innovations were going to be tested. In the mail three of those innovations were announced, concerning the long jump, pole vault and the new event of mile steeplechase. 

I followed the Fribourg, Track Lab, competition and the video transmission was a pure disaster. There were no real time results, the camera spent more time filming the spectators than the athletes. The whole thing was looking amateur to the point one may start formulating conspiracy theories, about WA trying to nip any possible innovation in the bud. 

But let us look more closely at the "innovations". It started with the women's 100 m hurdles where it was announced that there would be no reaction time constraint, meaning that somebody can start earlier than 100 ms after the signal. This is utterly ridiculous. The athletes have been conditioned for years to time their reaction so as to have it conform with the rules. It is not in one competition that they will become super-fast starters. If WA wished really to innovate they would decide here and now that the reaction-time threshold is lowered to, say, 70 ms (which appears indeed to be below a possible human reaction time) and be done with it. Abolishing the rule for just one competition is just smoke and mirrors.

But to tell the truth when I saw the track with the hurdles in position I had (for about a second) the hope that they would be trying something really innovating, namely introducing high hurdles for women, hurdles of 91 cm that would change completely the profile of the event. This is one more event where men-women parity is absent (but somehow nobody worries about this and WA prefers to let sleeping dogs lie).

The second "innovation" was to measure the highest point over the bar reached in pole vault.  (I am not going to talk about the decision to pitch elite women against young male athletes with personal bests of around 4.50 m. Given the format of the competition that was the only  possible solution). Anyhow, that was pure circus. The vaulters tried to jump in an unnatural style in order to reach the maximum height. The result was ugly, technically useless and, given the amateur video coverage, totally uninteresting.

The only thing one could really call an innovation was the long jump. I have dealt in great detail in my article "Imperative changes: horizontal jumps" with the necessity to measure the real length of the jump. The take-off board I was recommending there is one of 60-80 cm. (The one used for the visually impaired in the Paralympics has a length of 1 m). In Fribourg the take-off area measured 40 cm, but I can understand that the organisers were not going to install anything special: they used what was already in place which has typically an overall length of 40 cm. Unfortunately the event was botched by the total absence of coverage. The videographer spent all the time into showing us the run-up of the athletes and the high-fives they were exchanging with the children bordering the jump area. Not once did they show what would have been interesting, namely the real length of the jump compared to one measured from the take-off line as per the existing rules. And I am not even sure whether the judges were able to measure jumps where the take-off took place before the 40 cm take-off area. I remember a competition held almost 10 years ago in Sweden were there has been a similar experiment and were the results were mentioning both jump lengths. 

Unconstrained take-off is something that should have been introduced in the horizontal jumps as soon as the technology had made that possible (although the chalk-covered take-off board of the Paralympics is a perfect low-tech solution). Unfortunately I am afraid that since there will be a few negative opinions about this (there always are, some people are allergic to change) WA will shelve this project.

Should I talk about the supposed "innovation" concerning the javelin throw? It consisted in measuring a throw only if it was better than the (best of the) previous ones. Just imagine implementing this in a real competition. How can the judge tell if a throw that is close to the previous mark is better unless it is measured. And having registered only one result it is impossible to break any ties. So, let us forget about this. 

The mile steeplechase was the only interesting, real innovation of the Track Lab meeting. In an article of mine, a follow-up on metric vs. imperial I was suggesting to expand the steeple races to 2000 and 5000 m. The 2000 m is a race that is occasionally run but there has never been a talk about longer steeple races. Anyhow, the steeple mile is not bad, although anything that is imperial is raising my hackles.

Some time ago World Athletics published an article on sport and event innovation. They were talking (among others) about sport development testing which is underway. There list included 

New events such as a mixed 4x100m relay and a steeplechase mile 

A take-off zone for horizontal jumps

Improved efficiency of measurements

Reviewing the weights of women’s shot put and javelin

I have written already about a possible 4x100 m mixed relay. And I definitely would like to see this most challenging event in a real competition. 

I do not understand what the efficiency of measurements is about (unless this is a question about time measurements, in which case I refer you to my article on automatic timing).

But the most intriguing entry is the last one concerning the weights of women's implements for the shot put and the javelin. I don't know what they really mean by this. In one of my very first articles I had discussed the question of implements of different weights. Had the mass of the women's shot put been exactly half of that of men we could have hoped for almost 1 m gain in the throw length. While this is not enough to bring the men/women records to parity it is a move in the right direction. The question of javelin on the other hand is totally hopeless. There is simply no way to bring the women's record close to the men's one, unless we go back to the old generation glider javelins and diminish the weight to around 400 gr (assuming one can throw a 400 gr javelin with the same efficiency as a 600 gr one). I guess that we'll have to wait and see what WA have really in mind. 

But having seen the Fribourg Track Lab meeting I seriously doubt the commitment of World Athletics to innovation.

Track events at the Paris Olympics

Coming into the Olympics the hype surrounding N. Lyles was barely tolerable. Every media outlet was talking about the four gold medals that Lyles was going to win in Paris. The magic number of four was pervading everything to the point that Getty Images had mislabeled a photo from last year's World's where Lyles is showing three fingers after anchoring the US relay as "Holding Up 4 Fingers". These kind of predictions are reminding me the Mark Spitz Mexico disaster. Spitz went to Mexico predicting that he would win six gold medals. It turned out that he won just two (with the US relay team) plus one silver and one bronze.  (He took his revenge four years later, but it is clear that Mexico must have stung). 

And, in the case of Lyles, to add to the hype, there was the Netflix mini-series "Sprint" which premiered just before the Olympics. It's a series on the sprint stars Lyles, Richardson, Jackson, Hughes, Jacobs, Fraser-Pryce and Thompson. Jackson and Thompson did not make it to the Olympics, Jacobs had not completely recovered from his injury and finished 5th in the 100 m final, Hughes was eliminated in the semis and Fraser-Pryce withdrew from the 100 m semis (officially, due to an injury). This left Richardson and Lyles. The former lost to J. Alfred in the 100 m but managed to secure silver and anchored the US relay to gold. For Lyles, things were not so simple. But we will come to that shortly.

One more factor in the hype around Lyles was his feud with the NBA ecosystem. It started when Lyles at a post-World Championships conference took a swipe at the NBA for calling the season winners World Champions. I'll agree with Lyles on this point. They are merely US champions although, if there were World Championships for clubs, something akin to the Euroleague, the NBA stars would probably have won the title. Be that as it may, Lyles's remarks sparked strong reactions, with NFL players joining the conflict. J. Hart of the N.Y. Nicks did not hesitate to say "Damn, I really wanted to see him lose at all costs" (only to backtrack later and add "Respect. I can’t even hate him anymore"). T. Hill of the Miami Dolphins went as far as to question the legitimacy of Lyles' Covid illness as an excuse for his defeat in the 200 m. 

And during the time the media were focusing on Lyles, nobody was taking seriously S. Hassan's "Zatopek" gambit. For those who need a refresher: in the 1952, Helsinki, Olympics, Zatopek (already olympic champion over 10000 m in 1948) won the 5000 and 10000 m with A. Mimoun taking silver in both distances. (Mimoun would take his revenge four years later winning the Melbourne Marathon, with Zatopek finishing 6th). Then Zatopek, who had never run a marathon before, participated in the race and won a third gold medal. His feat has never been matched. L. Viren attempted the same gamble in 1976 (he had already won the 5000-10000 m double in 1972). After his victories over the track events (the first double-double in history) he entered the Marathon. However, he could not do better than 5th. Times have changed since Zatopek's era, so aligning three gold medals appears now totally unrealistic. But Hassan is a Zatopek-class athlete and managed to make good on her bet winning two bronze in the track events and gold in the Marathon. After her victory in the marathon, the media woke up and started talking about her. Better late than never.

After this looong introduction let us now look at the results.  

Women's 100 m semi-finals saw the elimination of several potential finalists: E. Swoboda, D. Asher-Smith, G. Bass, P. van der Weken, G. Lückenkemper, A. Leduc, while S.-A. Fraser-Pryce did not show up. Concerning the latter a stupid rumour circulated initially, that she was denied access having arrived at the stadium with a non-official means of transportation. However it was shortly announced that she had dropped out of the semis due to an injury. J. Alfred had easily beaten S. Richardson in the semis and she did exactly the same in the final winning in 10.72 s, Richardson taking silver in 10.87 and M. Jefferson bronze with 10.92 s. D. Neita was 4th just ahead of T. Terry while Kambundji was back to good shape just in time, making the final where she had to content herself with a 6th place. I was expecting something better from T. Clayton (who ran a 10.89 s in the semis). Once more M.-J. Talou was unlucky, injuring herself in the final (where her 10.87 s in the heats, would have sufficed for a medal).

Running under 10 s in the men's 100m semis was not enough in order to qualify for the final. L. Hinchliffe (9.97), B. Richardson (9.95), A-H Sani Brown (9.96), A. De Grasse (9.98) did not make it. K. Thompson was most impressive in the semis and the natural favourite for the gold medal. And he was leading the final till 90 m. But under the stress of the race he ran very tense and Lyles, more experienced at high level, ran more relaxed and managed to prevail by 5 milliseconds. 9.784 to 9.789 s. I was expecting A. Simbine to win bronze but in the end that went to F. Kerley with Simbine 4th 9.81 to 9.82 s. That was probably the overall fastest men's 100 m.

In the men's 200 m P. Tortu took his revenge over T. Mumenthaler who had beaten him for the European title and advanced to the semis only to be eliminated there, along with the 2020 gold medalist A. De Grasse and 400 m Rio winner W. van Niekerk. In the final Lyles arrived on the track in his usual exuberant style (and got a yellow card for improper conduct) but it is true that we had seen him wearing a mask in the warm-up area. K. Bednarek led the race up to 120 m whereupon L. Tebogo took command  and did not relinquish it till the finish line. The final times: Tebogo 19.46 s, Bednarek 19.62 s, Lyles 19.70 s and E. Knighton (perhaps not quite psychologically recovered from his alleged doping adventure) in fourth with 19.99 s. Lyles' four-gold bid was over then and there.

I was expecting a Thomas-Alfred duel in the women's 200 m. But this was not going to happen. Alfred led the race up to roughly 50 m but then G. Thomas took command and won easily with 21.83 s, Alfred winning silver with 22.08 s (but 21.86 s in the semis). D. Asher-Smith and D. Neita ran an excellent race, 22.22 and 22.23 s respectively, but barely missed the podium, the bronze medal going to B. Brown with 22.20 s. F. Ofili was 5th with 22.24 s and she is an athlete I am going to keep an eye on in the future. 

In the men's 400 m A. Doom was injured in the semis where K. James registered the best time with 43.78 s. The favourite for the title was M. Hudson-Smith but he could not resist to the final sprint of Q. Hall finishing second 43.44 to 43.40 s. Similarly J. Richards lost the bronze medal to M. Samukonga 43.78 to 43.74 s over the last 50 m. This time, and despite an excellent time of 43.87 s, K. James was not on the podium. M. Norman finished last, having registered his best time in the heats, and it is my opinion that he must think seriously about the future of his career. 

S. Miller-Uibo was present and ran in 53.50 in the repêchage but of course that was totally insufficient for the semis. It's a year and a half since she gave birth to her son. She had run in 52.65 last year in the World Championships (improving it later to 51.83 s). But this year's best is just 53.02 s. I don't know what is happening: at just 30 years of age she should still be competitive. M. Paulino was the logical favourite but with S. Eid-Nasser back from her two-year ban (for a whereabout violation) one could not be sure. The semis saw the elimination of L. Klaver, M. Nielsen, and L. Manuel (she would win the world U20 title a month later). In the final Paulino led all the way and could resist Nasser's final sprint, winning with 48.17 s (eclipsing Perec's olympic record) to Nasser's 48.53 s. N. Kaczmarek duel with R. Adeleke for bronze had the former prevailing, just as in the European's, 48.98 to 49.28 s. A. Anning was the fastest finisher and although she could do no better than 5th she was rewarded by a UK record, with 49.29 s. 

In the men's 800 m final E. Wanyonii took command of the race at the bell and never relinquished it, winning with 1:41.19. G. Tual was in contention for a medal but faded over the final sprint finishing 6th. M. Arop and D. Sedjati had a great finish obtain silver and bronze respectively, 1:41.20, and 1:41.50. B. Hoppel, finishing 4th with 1:41.67, was rewarded with a US record erasing the one of the short-lived and over-hyped D. Brazier.

2024 was the year of K. Hodgkinson. And the absence of A. Mu made things even easier. All she had to do was out-sprint Moraa. And she did. The semis saw the elimination of several runners who one would expect to find in the final like J. Reekie, N. Yarigo N. Goule or Ph. Gill. K. Hodgkinson, strong with a 1:54.61 recent personal best, took control of the race at the bell, relinquishing it briefly to T. Duguma, but then out-sprinting everybody in the final stretch finishing in 1:56.72. Duguma managed to beat Moraa fo silver, 1:57.15 to 1:57.42. R. Lamotte fought all the way for a medal but in the end she finished fifth behind S. Maloney 1:58.18 to 1:57.66. I was slightly disappointed by the last place of P. Segkodiso: her personal best of 1:57.26 would have placed her in the medals.

J. Ingebrigtsen lost once more the 1500 m. I have trouble understanding his tactic in Paris. He came to Paris with a 3:26.73 personal best which made him a favourite. Instead he ran as if he was afraid of J. Kerr (probably he was). He gave a very fast pace to the race hoping to blunt Kerr's sprint, which he did, but in the same he exhausted himself and when it came to the final sprint he could not follow neither Kerr nor the surprise winner C. Hocker. Over the last metres Y. Nuguse passed a disappointed Ingebrigtsen who finished without a medal. The times of the winners were 3:27.65, 3:27.79 and 3:27.80 among the all-time best in the distance.

The only noticeable absence from the women's 1500 m was that of European 2024 champion C. Mageean who injured herself a few days before the Olympics. But in the final there were eyes only for F. Kipyegon (and, to be fair, also for J. Hull, who is having a great season). D. Welteji led part of the way but then Kipyegon took control and only Hull could follow her. Kipyegon won in an olympic record of 3:51.29, Hull finishing second in 3:52.56. And, in a great finish, G. Bell passed Welteji for bronze, with 3:52.61 improving Muir's british record (Muir also improved on the ancient record finishing 5th in 5:53.37). With her third olympic victory in a row, Kipyegon joined Thiam and Wlodarczyk. She can now vie for Al Oerter's (and King Carl's) four-in-a-row record.

In men's 5000 m Ingebrigtsen went back to the Ingebrigtsen we know. The race was on a tame tempo but at the bell H. Gebrhiwet had 4-5 metres lead over Ingebrigtsen. However on the opposite stretch Ingebrigtsen caught and passed him, R. Kwemoi following him. And over the final stretch G. Fisher coming from behind managed to snatch bronze. (He had done the same a few days before in the 10000 m). The winners time was an uninteresting 13:13.66 but in this case Ingebrigtsen was running for the medal. In fourth place, south-Sudanese D. Lobalu represented the  Refugee Olympic Team. Two months before, in the Europeans, he represented Switzerland, winning gold in 10000 m and bronze in the 5000 m. (If you are interested in the personal adventure of Lobalu trying to have access to international competition I urge to read the Wikipedia article on him).

B. Chebet dominated the women's long distance, 5000 and 10000 m races. I still remember the fantastic sprint of Kipyegon, Hassan and Chebet in the 5000 of the 2023 World's where they finished in that order. There was another great sprint in Paris, only this time Chebet outrun the other two. N. Battocletti showed that she is one of the stars of women's long distance running, finishing fourth. The times of the winners: 14:28.56 for Chebet, 14:29.62 for Kipyegon, 14:30.61 for Hassan and an italian record of 14:31.64 for Battocletti. World record holder G. Tsegay was 9th, a pale image of herself (she would finish 12th in the 1500 m and 6th in the 10000 m). There was a ridiculous protest of the Ethiopian team arguing that Kipyegon had jostled Tsegay but fortunately good sense prevailed and Kipyegon kept her  silver medal. In the 10000 m the tempo was rather tame. At the beginning of the final stretch Chebet was leading with M. Kipkemboi just behind her. But the latter could not resist to the finish of Battocletti and Hassan who shared the remaining medals.

During the whole men's 10000 m race I was observing J. Cheptegei. He was running in the middle of the pack while the ethiopian trio Barega, Kejelcha and Aregawi were leading most of the time. They tried to do the same thing as in Tokyo, where Barega managed to beat Cheptegei launching a very early finish and hanging on. But it's not by chance that Cheptegei is the best 10000 m runner. He knew exactly what he had to do and with 600 m to go he took the lead and was never threatened. He finished in 26:43.14, a new olympic record. In fact the first 13 finishers did improve Bekele's record (J. Gressier establishing a french record of 26:58.67 at 13th). B. Aregawi grasped silver beating G. Fisher thanks to a devastating finish. (I was somewhat disappointed by the second ugandan, J. Kiplimo, who could do no better than 8th).

G. Holloway dominated the 110 m hurdles final in his usual fluid way, winning with 12.99 s. The 2020 champion, H. Parchment made it to the final, but just qualified on time, and finished 8th. The women's 100 m hurdles was a much more open event. World record holder T. Amusan, olympic champion J. Camacho-Quinn, world leader M. Russell, world 60 m hurdles record holder D. Charlton, European champion C. Samba-Mayela all were present. It was clear that not all of them would make it to the final. And in fact, T. Amusan was eliminated in the semis along with D. Kambundji and C. Sember who fell and could not complete her semi. In the final M. Russell prevailed with 12.33 s but Samba-Mayela, who had qualified last with a time just better than the one of Amusan, finished ahead of Camacho-Quinn, 12.34 to 12.36 s (winning the only french medal in athletics). N. Visser, who is having a great year, was fourth (improving by one place her result from Tokyo).

The men's 400 m hurdles was again a race that I greatly enjoyed. All five "musketeers" (see my old article if you do not understand the moniker) were present: Warholm, Benjamin, McMaster, dos Santos and Samba. I was somewhat worried about Samba who has been tortured by repeated injuries over the last years. But all of them were present and they made the final, their order perturbed by a new troublemaker, french hurdler, C. Ducos who finished 4th with 47.76 s. This time C. Warholm could prevail over Benjamin finishing second 47.06 to 46.46 s, but ahead of dos Santos, 47.26 s. McMaster was 5th with 47.79 and Samba 6th 47.98 s. Young talent R. Clarke hit the 10th hurdle, fell and could not finish the race. (Last year in the World's Clarke had also a similar misadventure, without fall, with a hurdle early on in the race but recovered and, profiting from dos Santos's mistakes in the 8th and 10th hurdle, managed to finish fourth).

The media have been talking about the McLaughlin-Bol duel over the women's 400 m hurdles. All the more so, since Bol had run a 50.95 s in July (but McLaughlin had also improved her WR with 50.65 s). Listening to the greek tv commentators one could imagine that the chances of Bol were real. In my report on this year's European's I was writing 

"Most European tv commentators like to present her as a serious threat to S. McLaughlin. But I beg to differ. Bol is a great champion but McLaughlin is still greater. The only one who could beat her was D. Muhammad back in the day".

And I stand by what I have written. In the end there was no duel. S. McLaughlin-Levrone was ahead of Bol all the way, running at the beginning at a reasonable pace and accelerating after 300 m. Once she turned on her acceleration it became clear that Bol could not follow.  McLaughlin won with a new world record of 50.37 s and Cockrell passed a flagging Bol winning silver in 51.87 s (and becoming the 4th performer of all time).

I have a confession to make. Since the Kenyans disappeared from the 3000 m steeple stardom I find the event uninteresting. I don't care to see El Bakkali win. Usually he out-sprints L. Girma but this time the situation was simpler. With 200 m to go Girma hit the barrier and fell heavily to the ground. 

El Bakkali jumped over him and went on to win in 8:06.05. Boring! Please Kenyans do something. 

The women's steeple race was the exact opposite to that of men: one that attracted all my attention. One of the reasons is that two of my favourite athletes, B. Chepkoech and W. Yavi, were battling for first place. Chepkoech is the world record holder while Yavi the reigning world champion. Last year Chepkoech finished second in the World's behind Yavi. This year, at the bell, Chepkoech started fading: she finished 6th in the end. Chemutai was leading all the way to the last barrier but in the final sprint it was Yavi who would prevail, winning with an olympic record of 8:52.76. Chemutai was second with 8:53.34 and Cherotich third in 8:55.16. European champion A. Finot had a great sprint going from 8th to 4th, being rewarded by a new french record of 8:58.87. 

I like Chemutai's reaction

The curse on the men's US relay struck again. After a semi-final where the exchange between Coleman and Kerley was a model one, Coleman securing a safe transfer with both hands, the team composition was modified with Bednarek in second position. And it was a disaster. Bednarek started way too early and then stopped to wait for Coleman. You can see in the photo that Coleman is ahead(!) of Bednarek. 

The US were obviously disqualified (they had finished 7th anyway). Canada won gold in 37.50 with South Africa second, 37.57, A. Simbine winning the first major medal in his career. (Let me point out here that that was one the medals Lyles was counting upon, but, to be fair, his being absent changed everything). The 4x400 m could also have been a disaster for the US team. In the semi they included the young prodigy Q. Wilson in the relay. That turned out to be a risky decision, as the 16 year old sprinter, with a 44.20 s personal best, tied up in the last 100 m finishing in 47.30 s. Fortunately for the US the remaining three runners made up the delay and the team was qualified (but having paid a great price in the effort expended). Olympic champion Q. Hall being injured, the US team was anchored by R. Benjamin. The race for the gold medal in the final became a duel between Benjamin and Tebogo who was anchoring Botswana. In the end the US prevailed but just barely in an olympic record of 2:54.43 to Botswana's 2:54.53 (African record) with splits of 43.0 for Tebogo and 43.1 for Benjamin. 

In the women's 4x100 m relay the british team was ahead of the US up to the last exchange. But, unfortunately for them, the exchange between A. Hunt and D. Neita did not go smoothly and given that the US anchor was S. Richardson, all the UK team could do was secure silver ahead of Germany with times 41.78, 41.85 and 41.97 s. The reigning olympic champion, Jamaica, was 5th. Sic transit gloria mundi. The women's 4x400 m was interesting because it allowed the US to break that haunted 1988 national record. With 3:15.27 they were at just 0.10 seconds from the world record of Soviet Union, in that Seoul memorable race where having FloJo anchor the relay did not change the issue. S. McLaughlin ran the second leg and her split was timed to 47.7. Given that the flying start is not so important in the 400 m, one can surmise that is edging closer and closer to M. Koch's 400 m flat record. Thanks to Bol the Netherlands were second in 3:19.50 while the UK, with Anning anchoring managed to beat Ireland, anchored by Mawdsley. S. Little profited from her non-qualification in the 400 m hurdles by being co-opted into the relays. 

And she went home with one gold and one silver. The latter was the one she won in the mixed 4x400 m relay. In the semis the US team established a new world record with 3:07.41. But, when in the final the Netherlands replaced Peeters by Bol, the situation changed completely. Already Klaver ran a slightly faster split than Little but it was Bol who made the difference with a 47.9 s anchor, winning in 3:07.43 at just 0.2 s from the WR. GB was third thanks to a great 48.8 anchor by Anning. Belgium, despite a national record, had to settle for fourth. 

The men's marathon was uneventful. T. Tola (2022 world champion) took control of the race before the 30th kilometre and led all the way to the finish line. B. Abdi who was bronze medalist in Tokyo (and also in 2022 in the World's) upgraded the colour of his medal to silver. The time of the winner 2:06:26 is an olympic record but it would have been much better had the race been run over a flat course. Unfortunately, the crazy idea to have the runners go from Paris to Versailles and back, with 436 m of elevation gain (and the same of descent), made better performances impossible. In the women's race I started watching closely at about mid-race. I was obviously looking for Hassan, being convinced that she would go for the gold. The leading group was thinning as the race advanced and Hassan was always there. There were just five left when they reached kilometre 40 with world record holder T. Assefa and H. Obiri (who had won the hilly Boston Marathon in 2023 and 2024) among them. Obiri faded to third place before the last stretch and Assefa and Hassan had to fight it out. When Hassan launched her sprint there was nothing stopping her. 

(Assefa protested that Hassan jostled her but, of course, this was not a protest to be taken seriously. It only shows a certain lack of sportsmanship on behalf of the Ethiopian team). Tokyo winner P. Chepchirchir (victorious in London this year and non-mixed race world record holder) could do no better than 15th. 

But the really sad moment of the event was when the great E. Kipchoge dropped out of the race at around 30 km, failing thus at his bid for a third olympic medal. No matter. Kipchoge is the greatest marathoner ever. 

And since we are speaking about sad things, perusing the men's results one find at 39th place a Kenenisa Bekele. One can wonder what he was doing in Paris. Having won silver in this year's London Marathon he probably thought that he could do something in Paris. Unfortunately the Paris course had nothing to do with the one, perfectly flat, of London and Bekele was just another victim.