The Balkan Games (aka Balkan Athletics Championships)

This a subject of pure nostalgia. 

Just picture a (very) young Athletics fan back in the 50s. No internet, no TV (in Greece), athletics being barely mentioned in the radio and the single source of information being the unique sports-centric greek newspaper "Athlitiki Icho". (The "Equipe" was available in Greece at that time, with a one-day delay, but regularly purchasing it was beyond my pocket money possibilities). So the best way to keep contact with Athletics was not to miss any local meeting organised in Athens' region. But these involved only the greek champions. So, whenever an international meeting was held in Athens that was something to celebrate. In this sense the year 1957 was special because we were treated to a double feature. Within a single week at the beginning of October we had first the Balkan Games and five days later the first and only historical meeting Balkans-Scandinavia. Having read about the feats of the Scandinavian athletes in the Melbourne Olympics the previous year, I was really thrilled about the opportunity to see them compete "live" in the Panathenaic Stadium. (And they did not disappoint me. I keep an indelible memory of that event).  

But throughout the decades of the 50s and 60s the most important yearly appointment were the Balkan Games. Now, let's be fair. European championships were first organised in the 30s and in the 50s they were held regularly every four years, with women events being included in the same organisation as that of men's already from 1946. The Mediterranean Games were first held in 1951 and by 1955 they were going strong. The famous annual duel USA-USSR was inaugurated in 1958 and would be held non-stop for over two decades. So, there were several important athletics events attracting the attention of the athletics fans, but, somehow, they all felt "far from home". The Balkan games though, were "our" Games. For greek champions the title of winner of Balkan games was probably the apex of their career. But let's start at the beginning.

The idea of an Athletics competition bringing together the countries of the Balkan peninsula germinated in the 20s (those of the 20th century, obviously). The main proponent was Demetrius Dallas, who came to Greece as a refugee from Smyrna in 1922. He was a lover of athletics and, while still in Smyrna, he was the organiser of the Panionian Games. During the 1924, Paris, Olympics he initiated discussions with the representatives of the other Balkan countries. The rationale was that, given the not-so-high level of the athletes of the Balkan countries, the participation in the Olympics could be a frustrating experience, while a competition among athletes of comparable levels could be much more rewarding. During the athletic congress in Amsterdam, on the occasion of the 1928 Olympics, it was agreed to organise yearly a Balkan Athletics Championship. And, as general rehearsal, the greek athletic federation organised in 1929, in Athens, the games that went down to history as pre-balkanic games, with the participation of Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania. Turkey would join the "official" Balkan Games in 1931 (although the turk premier I. Inonu was present at the opening ceremony of the 1930 Games). Albania joined the Games later (some sources give 1933 as the date for the first albanian participation but the date of 1946 is also encountered. Probably the latter corresponds to the date when Albania officially ratified the protocol of the Balkan Games). 

Women joined the Balkan Athletics Championships in 1957 with the great Iolanda Balas winning the high jump 9 consecutive times from 1957 to 1965. (Given that in 1966 the high jump was won with 1.69 m and Balas had jumped 1.76 m in spring, she could have won a tenth title were it not for her torn tendon that forced her to withdraw from the 1966 Europeans and put an end to her career).

There was a hiatus due to the war with no Balkan Games organised during the period 1941-1952. Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia participated in the first post-war championship in 1953 with Romania and Bulgaria joining the first three in 1956. Albania joined in 1963 but had just five participations up to 1986 (but is regularly participating since). The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90s was a great perturbation and could have led to the demise of the Balkan Games, all the more so, since the interest in this competition was waning (by that time there was a slew of international competitions and the World Championships had seen the light in 1983). Croatia and Slovenia were reticent at the beginning but in the end they joined the circuit (in 2013 and 2014). Serbia together with Montenegro continued as Yugoslavia up to 2004 where they separated. North Macedonia joined from 1996, as well as Moldova, issued from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, while Bosnia appeared in 1998.

But this perturbation was most probably at the origin of a more relaxed approach towards the Balkan Games. First, it was realised that the strict borders of the Balkan peninsula were too confining a definition as to which country could participate (after all, Slovenia and Moldova are most probably, geographically speaking, non-Balkan countries). Then the obvious ties of Cypriots and Armenians with the Balkan peninsula and the emergence of Kosovo as an independent entity made the abolishment of the geographic criteria inevitable. Thus the Association of Balkan Athletic Federations (ABAF) opened its doors successively to Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Kosovo, San Marino, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Austria and Malta. (I am convinced that the influence of D. Karamarinov who has been president of the ABAF from 2010 to 2021, before becoming president of European Athletics, was instrumental in this opening).

For the participating countries, the Balkan Games is a test-ground for the young and upcoming athletes as well as for the established champions who are seeking a less stressful competition in order to fine-tune their preparation. Thus the competition that was flagging in the 80s is now in full swing with Senior, Junior, U20 (both outdoor and indoor), U18 championships as well as Cross Country, Race Walking, Marathon (and half-Marathon) and even Mountain Running championships.

If you are interested in the history of the Balkan Games there is an excellent article on the site Athletics Podium but even better is the Statsbook they had prepared on the occasion of the 2024 Games. I wrote a laudatory article on this great turkish site two years ago. So, if you are an athletics fan (if not, what are you doing here?) bookmark immediately the Athletics Podium site.

I cannot close this article without a remark on what is missing from the program of specific Balkan Championships: combined events. In fact, when the Balkan games were planned the greek organisers did not wish to include hammer throw (under the pressure of the other countries it became part of the program from 1930). Instead they pushed for the greek-style discus throw, only to see a Bulgarian win five times in a row. (Anyhow, the event was discontinued in 1939). There was also a discussion about a medley relay and in 1929 the program included a 1500-800-400-200 m one, only to be replaced from the next year by a 800-400-200-100 m (balkan?) relay (that was discontinued in 1939). But the astonishing point is that the greek representatives vetoed the inclusion of the decathlon in the Balkan Games. It was only in 1939 that the first decathlon was held in the balkan games, and with the interruption due to the war it had to wait till 1957 before appearing again. At that time the women's pentathlon entered the program as well and was replaced by a heptathlon in 1981. (World record holder of 80 m hurdles, Draga Stamejcic, won the pentathlon seven times between 1957 and 1964). Alas, in 1999 the most unfortunate decision to discontinue the combined events was taken. They disappeared from the program and were not replaced (as in the case of the Marathon) by a specific championship that would gather the best balkan combined-event specialists in the same venue. Fortunately, the ABAF saw the light and reintroduced the combined events in the program of the Balkan Championships from 2014. Hallelujah.

Decathlon2000 goes free

There is something with myself and Decathlon2000. First, the site is perhaps the best english-speaking decathlon site out there. (Just in case you do not get the "english-speaking" addition, I can make clear that the very best decathlon site is the one of my friends' Frédéric and Pierre Gousset, but, alas, in french: Décapassion). Second I am a huge decathlon fan. So, why do I have this reserved attitude when it comes to Decathlon2000? I have been writing my blog for over 10 years before referring for the first time to Decathlon 2000.

I tried to analyse my attitude and I concluded that my relative reticence was due to the fact that Decathlon2000 was for the major part behind a paywall. And I hate paywalls. I can understand it when newspapers do this. After all, they must make a living in the digital era and there is no other way to do this. But when somebody who is writing a blog out of passion tries to monetise it I start bristling. You can call me old-school, but I maintain that passion and money do not go together.

So, again, when I read in Décapassion around the beginning of July that Decathlon2000 was tearing down the paywalls I somehow suppressed the info and did not report right away. Today I am remedying this. Because, let's be fair, Decathlon2000 is the bible of combined events. If you look for statistical data that's the place you should visit. Ditto for historical articles. So from here onwards my attitude towards Decathlon2000 will definitely change. 

I forgot, there is one more thing (the expression is a tribute to the great Steve Jobs). Decathlon2000 is free but accepts donations. And this is something I totally condone. There is nothing more natural when you appreciate something than to make a small gift. So, if you become a regular visitor to J. Salmitsu's site, think about a donation. 

PS. Those who follow my blog have certainly remarked that I am a stickler for details. So I visited the decathlon point and I saw this

Now, why on earth, is there a different format for jumps and for throws? Both are measuring distances. I was thinking about replacing the USATF calculator I have been using for years by that of Decathlon2000 but I am sure that latter will grate on my nerves whenever I will open the window. So I am going to stick with the USATF one for the time being.

US Track & Field Trials 2025: who's in and who's out

The US Athletics Trials were held from July 31st to August 3rd. For American athletes they are of capital importance since they determine who will be selected for the national team that will represent the US in the Tokyo World Championships. All the more so, since only seven athletes have obtained a wild card, having won the world title during the 2023 Championships: N. Lyles (who won both 100 and 200 m), G. Holloway (110 m hurdles), R. Crouser (shot put), S. Richardson (100 m), K. Moon (pole vault), C. Ealey-Jackson (shot put) and L. Tausaga-Collins (discus throw). I'm not going to give a full analysis of the Trials but just point out what I found more interesting. 

Melissa Jefferson-Wooden winning the 100 m

K. Bednarek dominated the 100 m and went on to finish second in the 200 m yielding the first place to Lyles over the last metres, feeling the tiredness of five demanding races (but this did not prevent Lyles to behave as a jerk after the race). T. Bromell finished 4th in the men's 100 m and so will make the team only for the relay. I just hope they will not take the 5th finisher (C. Coleman) to Tokyo. And E. Knighton, finishing 5th in the 200 m, will not make the team this time.  Does this have something to do with last year's doping problem?  M. Jefferson-Wooden was really impressive, wining both 100 and 200 m. Her 10.65 s over the former distance is the 5th best time ever. I was somewhat disappointed by the 4th place of T. Terry but, at least, she got to run in the relay. S. Richardson ran only in the heats. And then she managed to get arrested at the airport on a domestic violence offence, with her boyfriend C. Coleman. (I liked her better when she preferred girls). G. Thomas managed to scrape into the team by just a millisecond. In fact Thomas, Brown and Long were given the same time, 22.20 s, and were separated for 3rd, 4th and 5th place by milliseconds: 22.197, 22.198 and 22.199. Unfortunately, I could not find the photo-finish of the race. 

This is the best I could do for the 200 m final

S. McLaughlin won easily the 400 m in 48.90 s. Now, why on earth, did she opt for the 400 flat dropping the hurdles? Both Nasser and Paulino, with 48.67 and 48.81 s, have better times this year. Of course all three can run under 48 seconds, but the risk of McLaughlin being beaten by either or both is quite appreciable. When I saw the entries of the 400 m I was rejoicing at the return of B. Wilson whom I had noticed in 2022 when she ran a most promising 53.08 in the 400 m hurdles. Unfortunately she finished 6th in the final and will not go to Tokyo. I don't know what is happening with A. Mu(-Nikolayev). Not only is she not qualified, she did not even make the final. If you don't count the performances of the doping-uncontrolled years and you throw away Semenya's as well, Mu is the third performer of all time after Jelimo and Hodgkinson. (I just hope that the hamstring injury of the latter will not totally spoil her season). In my report on the 2022 World's I was writing that I was "wondering whether D. Brazier, heralded as the new talent of 800 m, was just a shooting star, bright once and then gone. Well, it turns out that I was wrong. Brazier did a spectacular comeback winning the 800 m in 1:42.16. The men's 800 m in Tokyo will be the race to follow. All the more so, since C. Lutkenhaus made the team with a world U18 record in 1:42.27. You should watch the race in YouTube, it's amazing. (The other young prodigy, Q. Wilson, who had recently ran a 44.10 s U18 world record did not manage to make the final in the 400 m). 

D. Muhammad winning the 400 m hurdles

Masai Russell was impressive in the 100 m hurdles. I don't see who will stop her from adding a world gold to her olympic one. K. Harrison is once more just below par when it counts, finishing at 4th place due to a sluggish start. D. Muhammad is having an excellent year (which is supposedly the last of her long career). She won the 400 m hurdles in 52.65 s and, together with her teammate A. Cockrell, they will try to snatch gold from F. Bol. (I wished to see the video of the final but the as...le who had uploaded it did not give access outside the US. Fortunately I have an excellent VPN). G. Holloway decided to use his champion's bye for the 110 m hurdles but, be that as it may, I don't think he is in the same good shape as the previous years. But perhaps I am wrong. 

The last day of the US championships coincided with the ones in Greece. And guess what, the guy who won high jump in Greece did that with 2.21 m, just missing 2.25 m, while J. Harrison and S. McEwen, world and olympic vice champions respectively, ended their contest at 2.22 m. Sad! Equally sad was seeing KC Lightfoot (he had the 4th best all-time performance before Karalis' great 6.08 m jump the same week-end) unable to go beyond 5.62 m in the pole vault and S. Kendricks making the team with just 5.72 m. The women's pole vault, won by S. Morris, was a bizarre event. 

At 4.73 m Morris and Moon were tying at first place while the two Moll twins occupied the 3rd and 4th place. And they both passed 4.78 m! I cannot grasp the logic of this. Since Morris and Moon passed, the Moll sisters should on the contrary have tried that height. If they managed to pass they would have pushed Moon (in view of fact that she did not go beyond 4.73 m) out of the selection. At least Hana Moll should have gambled (all the more so, since her personal best is 4.81 m). But both decided to skip 4.78 m and, as a result, only one of the sisters, Amanda, will jump in Tokyo. I am a fan of T. Davis-Woodhall and once more she showed her great talent, but the one I was following was J. Moore. Would she manage two selections once more? Well, not this time, as she could do no better than 5th in the long jump. But she totally dominated the triple jump where all her jumps were better than the jumps of all the remaining athletes.

The same is true for V. Allman in the discus throw where with 71.45 m she threw almost 7 metres more than the second (2023, lucky, champion L. Tausaga-Collins). The women's hammer throw saw the return of two world champions, D. Price and B. Andersen, who won in 2019 and 2022 respectively. But the great surprise was the men's shot put. I was following the results live but it was getting late and I decided to call it a day after the third round where J. Kovacs was leading with 22.07 m followed by T. Piperi and P. Otterdahl. I went to bed and I saw the final result the next morning. And I found that Kovacs would miss a World Championships selection for the first time since 2015. (He was world champion in 2015 and again in 2019 in that unforgettable contest where he won with 22.91 m ahead of Crouser and Walsh, both having thrown 22.90 m). Awotunde won with a last attempt throw of 22.47 m, Otterdahl obtained his selection with 22.35 m while Piperi had surpassed Kovacs at his 4th throw with 22.29 m. R. Crouser, being the reigning world champion, used his bye but we are hearing that he has some elbow problems, so the competition in Tokyo will be wide open. 

Anna Hall dominated the heptathlon with 6899 points registering personal bests in high jump and the throws. I think that her long jump is slightly below par and it is clear that she did not push herself to the limit in the track events. I believe she is ready for a 7000+ performance in Tokyo. In the wake of Hall, T. Brooks obtained her qualification for the World's with a 6526 points personal best. M. Atherley, having a bye thanks to her victory in the 2024 Combined Events Tour, participated in just 4 events where she showed that she is in great shape. 

In the men's decathlon I was waiting impatiently the come-back of G. Scantling after the three years' suspension for a doping "whereabouts" violation. And it was a deception. After two so-so events, trailing at 10th position, he dropped out. K. Garland confirmed his great shape winning with 8869 points. H. Baldwin and H. Williams were second and third but their score was below the qualification minimum of 8550 points set by WA. (They are both qualified for Tokyo though: Baldwin on last year's performance and Williams on ranking). 

On the Grand Sham Track

No, I haven't misspelled Slam. I'm just giving my opinion on what I think the whole thing was from the outset.

OK, let's go back to when the GST was announced. In my first article I did make it clear that one of the reasons I did not like the new form of competition was because I have never liked Michael Johnson. In a second article I produced a more serious, technical, argument. And, in a spell of honesty, I wrote that not everything was bad about GST. After all, it's thanks to the special format of this competition that we got to watch Sydney McLaughlin run the 100 m flat. (Please forgive me if I don't add systematically her married surname, Levrone. It is getting too long and I'm lazy. Why didn't she change her name to her husband's name as many female champions have done? Ivanna Spanovic did it for just one season, just to spite future uninformed Athletics statisticians, before divorcing).

So, what happened with Grand Slam Track? I was following the US Trials (an article on them is under preparation) and I was intrigued by the fact that McLaughlin did not participate in her specialty 400 m hurdles. She is in great shape, as attested by her 48.90 s in the 400 m flat, and has a 52.07 s season's best on the hurdles from the beginning of May (which is second only to Bol's 51.95 s). So I decided to have a look at the results of the last round of GST, planned for the end of June in Los Angeles. And I found out that the competition was listed as "upcoming" in the GST page. I started sniffing around and, there it was: the Web was boiling over with news about the GST defaulting on the payment of bonuses.

M. Johnson's startup had promised athletes that it would pay a first instalment of prize money by the end of July. And they missed the deadline. And we are talking about just the 3 million dollars from the Kingston competition, held in April (for which the athletes got just the appearance fees). In total GST owes the athletes 13 million dollars for the three events already held. (And of course, for Philadelphia and Miami, not even the appearance fees were paid).

Enter Michael Johnson. He tried to justify the situation in an interview with Justin Gatlin(!). (If you read this blog, you know what I think about the latter. All in all, I find that he is a fitting company for M. Johnson). Johnson blamed the downturn of the global economy in April that led one of his investors to back out. He stated that they are working with the remaining investors but he admitted that the process is pretty complex. 

It's a sad situation for the athletes; champions like Gabby Thomas literally begging for their due. Grant Fischer declared that "if the money doesn’t come through, then no athlete is ever going to want to take a chance on a new idea". And, of course, if they do not pay their debts there is no chance whatsoever for the competition to return next year (despite Johnson's reassurances). The new deadline is now September's end. But one has every right to be skeptic. 

And how about World Athletics? After all, Lord Sebastian had welcomed the competition, when it was announced with the words: “I welcome innovation, I welcome external resources”. Now WA has warned GST of a potential punishment. Let's get serious! What can WA do? Grand Slam Track is dead in the water. And, most probably M. Johnson has learned his lesson. The athletes will or won't get their money after years of fighting GST in court. And there is nothing Sir Sebastian can do about this. If he wishes to do something for Athletics, he should recognise the women's decathlon championships to be held in a few days and introduce an official WA championship from next year. (I hope that I am not surprising you with this ending of an article on GST. I wanted to end on something positive and there is nothing better for me than women's decathlon).

The SRY gene test is here

Well, not exactly "here". World Athletics announced today that the test will be mandatory for athletes wishing to compete in the female category starting from September 1st. For the time being it is not clear for which competitions the test will be a requirement. Judging from the words of Lord Sebastian 

“We are saying, at elite level, for you to compete in the female category, you have to be biologically female. It was always very clear to me and the World Athletics Council that gender cannot trump biology",

it will probably concern only high-level ones. It will only be required to pass the test once-a-lifetime and it can be conducted by a simple cheek swab (but also through a blood test). 

So, what is the SRY gene test about? The aim of the test is to detect the presence of the SRY gene, which is the Sex-determining Region on the Y chromosome, responsible for initiating male sex development in mammals. The gene is coding for a protein that triggers the formation of testes and male sexual characteristics. The test is cheap and highly predictive of male development. It can classify 99.99% of individuals as either male or female.

Of course one can wonder about the remaining 0.01%. This is, and by far given the size of people practicing competitive sport, a non-negligible class. There can indeed be discrepancies between the screening results and the individual's development. If such a thing happens the athlete has to undergo further testing, conducted by medical experts. The aim of this is to detect whether the athlete has experienced male development during puberty (in which case he cannot be admitted in the female category). It's a perfectly ethical way to handle the atypical situations that leaves the final decision to experts. 

Let us have a look at these "atypical" situations. The three more common ones are Swyer syndrome, CAIS and 5-ARD. 

The Swyer syndrome (also known as 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis) is a condition where an individual has a 46,XY karyotype (typically male chromosomes) but develops a female phenotype with normal female external genitalia, uterus, and fallopian tubes. However the individual does not undergo puberty naturally and is infertile. The syndrome is often caused by mutations in the SRY gene. Women with Swyer syndrome have no advantage due to the presence of the X chromosome and should be allowed to participate in female competitions, despite failing the SRY test.

The Complete Androgen InSensitivity (CAIS) is a condition where an individual has a 46,XY karyotype but the body’s cells completely fail to respond to androgens. The external genitalia are female and the testes are usually undescended, located inside the abdomen. The syndrome is caused by mutations in the androgen receptor gene which blocks the ability of the body to respond to testosterone. The individuals do not experience male development and do not have any advantage associated with androgenisation. Again, women with CAIS should be allowed to participate in female competitions.

The 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD) is a condition where a genetic male (46,XY) has a deficiency of the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase, which converts testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The latter is the hormone essential for the masculinisation of external genitalia before birth. In this case the individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia and may be assigned female at birth. However the testes are present and the deficiency of DHT does not impact the male-level testosterone production at puberty nor the androgen receptor response. So, these individuals have a male development and all the advantages of masculinisation. (I am looking at you, Semenya). Clearly, women with 5-ARD should not be allowed to participate in female competitions.

For World Athletics the athletes who may compete in the female category are biological females and, as we explained above, biological males with CAIS (and, I suppose, Swyer syndrome as well). Transgender women are excluded. On this point the rules of WA are less logical since they accept biological males with DSD (probably, 5-ARD) provided they satisfy the transitional conditions (that have to do with lowering the testosterone level) and, in some way, sidestep the issue of transgender claiming that there is none competing at the elite international level under the current regulations. This is, of course, pure rubbish. What one expects from World Athletics are clear rules that would apply to everybody and not just the elite.  

When I saw the article on the WA website I rushed over to the X/twitter page of Ross Tucker (a sports physiologist for whom I have a deep respect). And, as expected, his commentary was already there:

"Excellent & necessary step, which I hope other sports follow. Fairness & safety in women’s sport requires that male advantage be excluded. That means drawing a solid boundary around it, and screening to confirm who is eligible, and who should be excluded". 

Tucker and collaborators had published (after the fiasco of boxing during the Paris Olympics) an article entitled "Fair and Safe Eligibility Criteria for Women's Sport". As was expected the trans lobby reacted with fallacious arguments, hiding behind a cloak of respectability with Professor (does he really need to sign as "professor"? Does he need to use an appeal to authority even for himself?) A. Williams claiming that many disagree with the proposed measures. This is utterly ridiculous. We are electing governments for which sometimes almost half the population is against. Does this mean that we should not have any government at all? But anyhow, just to set this straight, Tucker and collaborators refer to a survey of female athletes after the Atlanta 1996 Olympics where 82% supported sex testing and only 6% reported discomfort about the test protocol. I am willing to bet that in the case of the cheek swab for the SRY test the female athletes' agreement will be overwhelming. (And, of course, a disagreeing minority will always exist).

The main reason we are still talking about the need to protect women's sport is that the IOC, who could have settled the question long ago, preferred, once more, to wash their hands and leave the decision to the federations. But while the richest federations can finance scientific studies on which to base their measures for the protection of the female category, the poorer ones (the vast majority) are left to fend for themselves. Before her election at the IOC presidency, Kirsty Coventry had stated that it was important to ensure fairness in women's sport and to maintain the integrity of women's categories. What will she do now that she is at the head of the Olympic Committee? Will she, like her predecessor, hide behind neutrality? Perhaps not. In fact at a recent press conference she stated that  "There was overwhelming support for the idea that we must protect the female category. Therefore, we will create a working group composed of experts ... We [the IOC] should be the ones to bring together the experts and international federations and ensure consensus". (I will believe it when I see it).

The article in the WA site ends with the statement that

World Athletics does not judge or question gender identity.

I don't either, but I cannot stand mediocre men who, since they cannot prevail over other men in competition, decided that it is easier to beat women. This is as sexist as it can be and the (non-athlete) women who advocate for (male) transgender athletes to be admitted into female sports should awaken from their misguided, beliefs. Women had striven for years in order to be admitted to sports. Now that they are, at long last, there, their efforts should not be in vain because of the woke-induced illusions of a minority who distastes sports.

On the fake progressivity of the WA scoring tables

I have always pointed out in this blog that World Athletics is doing something the wrong way: scoring track events using time instead of the appropriate physical variable i.e. the velocity. 

Recently the World Athletics Scoring Tables were updated in order to provide scoring for the "new" events recognised by WA: 300 m hurdles, mile road race, half marathon race walk, marathon race walk and the mixed relays 4x400 m outdoor and indoor. Mind you, these are not the combined events scoring tables. (I don't know how long we will have to wait before World Athletics decides to provide a scoring for women's short track 1000 m making possible the homologation of indoor heptathlon records for women).

Since the 300 m hurdles has been a race abundantly advertised at the beginning of the season I decided to have a look at its scoring. Below is a graph giving the dependence of the number of points of the registered time. 

The continuous line corresponds to the fit with a formula 

(which is exactly what WA is using in the decathlon scoring tables). From the best fit we obtain the values a=1.279 and c=1.955, while the time corresponding to 0 points is 67.42 s. The appearance of the curve and the value of c close to 2 sustain the illusion of progressivity. But let us look at what happens when one uses the proper physical variable, namely the velocity. In the graph below 

the dependence of the number of points with the velocity is almost rectilinear. In fact when one performs a fit with an expression

one obtains the values a=222.7 and c=1.129 (while the velocity for 0 points is 4.4776 m/s). The value of c close to 1 confirms the visual impression of lack of progressivity. 

This is not something new. The same behaviour is observed on the scoring of all track events. But, by giving the scoring in terms of the time, a misleading progressivity appears, which unfortunately masks the defect of the scoring choice.

The question of progressivity is one that my friends of Décapassion, Frédéric and Pierre Gousset, have addressed in a slghtly different context, that of throws. They remarked that the scoring of throws, given by a formula similar to the one based on the velocity, has exponents c equal to 1.05, 1.1 and 1.08 for the shot put, discus and javelin throw respectively, an almost rectilinear dependence. They argue that this should be remedied with exponents c=2 leading to real progressivity. I will not enter into more details here and invite you to go and read their most interesting article. (We have been, for some time now, thinking about writing a joint article on the matter. I just hope that one day we'll find the time to do this). 

For the Decathlon fans

I was expecting this article, since my Décapassion friend, Frédéric Gousset, was present during the Décastar at Talence. The article has now appeared on their blog along with superb photos. 

If you have followed the event and you wish to re-live it, just follow this link. And if you have missed it, that's an even more important reason to go and visit their blog and enjoy the excellent article on the 2025 Décastar. (And don't worry if you don't know french. Today's translations are near perfect). 

PS In my post on the "One-day decathlon" I talked about the idea of 4-misses-out  (or 5 or 6) for the vertical jumps. In fact, the more I think about this the more I like it. It's a perfect mechanism to mitigate the no-height risk. Suppose an athlete starts at 4.80 m in pole vault and has three misses. He cannot go higher but he still can try at a lower height. If the organisers have proposed an initial height at, say, 4.40 m and increments of 10 cm afterwards he can use his remaining misses at, say, 4.50 m. If he passes, he can even try at some superior height (but still lower than the 4.80 m where he had three misses). Had such a rule been adopted early enough, the 1992 olympic title would have most probably changed owner.

Hell froze over: I am writing an article on triathlon

Those who read regularly my blog know that I do not like the triathlon. I find the formula, where the stopwatch is running continuously, somewhat unnatural, in particular for short events like the olympic one. The athletes must manage the change of attire and equipment, between swimming and biking and again between the later and running, losing the least possible time. In an event of, roughly, 50 km where the best athletes are taking well below 2 hours, the loss of one minute during equipment change can easily modify the outcome. But, of course, when compared with the supposedly "modern" pentathlon the triathlon is infinitely more interesting. 

Now, to be fair, my objection concerning the transition time from one specialty to the other is no more valid when it comes to the original triathlon formula, the Ironman. In an event that takes 7-8 hours to complete, the transition time is negligible. Talking about the Ironman as the "original" triathlon needs some explanation. It is true that the first competition over the Ironman distances (3.8 km swimming, 180 km of bike and running a marathon) took place in 1974 and the name was coined in 1978 with the creation of the Hawaii triathlon. However the very idea of a swim-bike-run event can be traced back to France and the beginning of the 20th century with  the famous « Course des Débrouillards ». The names « Les trois sports » and « La course des Touche-à-tout » were also used and sometimes the swimming was replaced by canoeing. (Were I a fan of triathlon, I would have inserted a « cocorico » here).

How did I end up writing about the triathlon? As you may remember I published recently two articles on Ultra-running and the Speed Project, both having to do with running events that stretch over several days. While researching for the latter post I stumbled upon an article, mentioning the fact that some canadian lady athlete had just completed a Deca Ultra-triathlon in 11 and a half days. I read the detail and I could not believe my eyes. The event consists in 10 Ironmans lumped together: 38 km of swimming, 1800 km of biking and 10 marathons. I decided to learn a little bit more about these crazy events and I found out that the "deca" is not the last word. What started in 1985 as a double Ironman (or was it the 1983 Ultraman that launched the ultra-triathlon events?) has been steadily expanding with, today, 20x and 30x events. And the two formulae do exist, a continuous one and a "one per day". 

When I saw the performances of the triathletes in events spanning up to 40 days I was immediately reminded of my work in collaboration with J. Meloun and G. Purdy (A mathematical model for scoring athletic performances, Math. and Sports 5 (2023) 1) where we analysed the running velocities for distances going from 20 m to 1600 km. As explained in my post on running velocities, for multi-day events the additional slow-down mechanism is due to the fact that the athlete must take time to sleep, eat and take care of other bodily functions. And, in fact, for races with duration above 12 hours, a non-negligible amount of time is devoted to non-running moments. In our paper mentioned above, we had presented a fit of the velocity as a function of the distance for various ranges of distances. The one that is interesting here is one covering the distances from 100 to 1600 km, for durations from roughly 6 hours to over 10 days. In the figure below I present the data together with the best fit of the form 

leading to an exponent γ close to 0.35.

Next I turn to the ultra-triathlon data, plot the velocity (in the appropriate units) as a function of the repetitions of the Ironman and fit the date with the same formula and with the same exponent γ. (The choice of units affects the value of A but not that of g).

We can remark that the fit is quite satisfactory. Thus we may conclude that the ultra-marathoners and the ultra-triathletes face the same difficulties linked to the excessive duration of the event and the fact that they must reserve time for sleep and other body's needs. It is also telling that in the case of the triathlon the fit over-estimates the velocity for the 30x event. Since the event requires more than a month to be completed it is natural that long-term fatigue sets in with as a result a further velocity degradation. One should compare this to the fit we presented in the article mentioned above for the velocity as a function of the distance for distances from 1 km to the marathon. There, the exponent gamma is much smaller, around 0.07. Ij this case the velocity degrades very slowly, in a mechanism remaining predominantly aerobic over the whole span of distances, the decrease being due mainly to the onset of fatigue. 

When I set out to write this article I was a triathlon-skeptic. After having read several articles on the origins of the discipline and on its "ultra" forms I am less so. But, let's be frank, I am nowhere near becoming a fan. One reason for this that the triathletes I am meeting are invariably as...les, considering themselves as "ironmen" despite their obvious mediocrity. People who run know very well that it's not because they managed to finish some marathons that they may consider themselves on par with Eliud Kipchoge. This is a lesson that triathletes have yet to learn.

Night of records in Eugene

I was not planning to write something on the Eugene Diamond League. But when I saw those superb images of Béatrice Chebet celebrating Kipyegon's 1500 record more than her own in the 5000 m I felt that I had to do something. 

Chebet and Kipyegon

But let us start at the beginning. And I will start with a missed record, that of Winfred Yavi in the 3000 m steeple. She ran in 8:45.25 at less than a second form the world record of Béatrice Chepkoech. This is the second time that Yavi gives the record (that goes back to 2018) a scare. And since she is just over 25 years old she has several good years ahead of her that would probably allow her to bring the record bellow 8:40. (But she should beware of Faith Cherotich and Peruth Chemutai who are just 21 and 25 respectively and who ran in 8:48.71 and 8:51.77 finishing behind Yavi. In fact Chemutai was second behind Yavi last year in Rome when Yavi ran her best 8:44.39, finishing in 8:48.03). Those who follow my blog know that I am a great admirer of Béatrice Chepkoech (I insist on her given name because there is a second Chepkoech, Jackline, running also the 3000 m steeple, with a 8:57.35 from 2023 and who is not quite 22 years old. She looked at some point as the successor to her homonyme. Unfortunately her last two years have been really below-par: her 2024 best was 9:19 and this year she has not done better than 9:30). However when Yavi made her appearance I immediately saw that we had there a pure gem. She did take her time to reach the summit (and there was a time, like in my report on theTokyo Olympics, when I was voicing my disappointment for her 10th place in the final). And thus whenever the two, Chepkoech and Yavi, ran together I knew I was going to be frustrated, since only one of the two could win. 

Béatrice Chebet confirmed (it's not as if anybody had a doubt) her position as the queen of middle distances. After having broken the 29 min barrier in the 10000 m, she did break another magical barrier, that of 14 min in the 5000 m. The men's 15 min record was improved in 1904 and the 14 min fell in 1942 when G. Hägg ran 13:58.2. His record was improved by such illustrious names as Zatopek and Kuts in the mid fifties. Things are even more spectacular in the 10000 m. It took Zatopek from 1949 to 1954 and five successive records before he managed to finish under 29 minutes. Seventy years later a woman manages to do as well as Zatopek! Paola Pigni was the first woman to run under 16 minutes in 1969 and Ingrid Kristiansen broke the 15 minutes barrier in 1984. Then it took another 40 years for the next barrier to fall. In the case of the 10000 m  Mary Decker Slaney was the first to run under 32 minutes in 1982, Kristiansen went under 31 just three years later but the 30 minutes barrier fell under the highly questionable chinese 1993 boom, thus muddling the statistics. Chebet, with last year's 28:54.14, set the record straight (pun intended).

I did not like the idea of the sub-4 mile but I do like the 'Nike Fly Suit'

I was somewhat skeptic concerning Faith Kipyegon's chances at a world record. In particular after the crazy, publicity-motivated, attempt at a below-4 mile. (Let's get real. Kipyegon's record is a great 4:07.64. Asking for a 3% improvement in one go is ridiculous. And one could see that Kipyegon, running already all out in the first three laps, was struggling on the stretch opposite to the finish. She managed a 4:06.42, but I am convinced that she could have done equally well in a normal race with just one or two female pacers and a sensible race strategy. And in Eugene she adopted the best possible one. She followed the pacer, S. Hurta-Klecker a 4:01 runner, who did a great job, up to 1100 m and then took off. While in Paris she faltered over the last two hundred meters, in Eugene she was flying. Even J. Hull, who is admittedly the second best 1500 m runner, could not follow her opponent's devastating sprint. Kipyegon finished in 3:48.68 and the celebrations followed. And Kipyegon redeemed herself after the Paris failure. 

PS No, I am not going to comment on the article "Could a female athlete run a 4-minute mile with improved aerodynamic drafting?" by da Silva and collaborators (Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 12: 241564).  It is easy to fiddle with parameters and obtain the result you wish when it is just a 3% effect. Obtaining that on the track is a totally different matter. But let us not be negative and just rejoice at these two superb records we watched in Eugene.

The one-day decathlon

This article is directly inspired by a discussion I had with my Décapassion friends, Frédéric and Pierre Gousset. We were talking about one-hour decathlon and then they mentioned the Iron Deca organised in Arles roughly ten years ago. I don't know how long this event survived (probably just two-three years) but it piqued my curiosity and I decided to follow the trail. The Gousset had devoted an article to this event entitled "how long should a decathlon take?" where they were mentioning an article by ukrainian coach, A. Fatieiev, published in New Studies in Athletics and who was addressing the question whether a one-day decathlon was possible.  Having read Fatieiev's article I decide to present my ideas in this post.

But let's start at the beginning. The Stade Olympique Arlésien organised, in 2013-15, what they called the Iron Déca, a meeting where the whole decathlon (heptathlon for the women) was held in one day instead of two. The organisers were planning two sessions of 2h30 separated by 4 hours of rest. Given the tight schedule, the competition was limited to groups of 8 athletes. Preparing the soil marks for the jumps had to be done before the competition. But, most important, no rule modification concerning the jumps and throws were introduced. So, it was a perfectly normal decathlon, condensed in just one day. 

The only result I could find is that of the 2013 winner, Bastien Auzeil, with 7396. His best "normal" decathlon performance that year was 8022 points, situating the one-day performance at 92% of the best. This is, and by far, not exceptional. Both the world and the french best one-hour decathlon performances (Zmelik, 7897 and Blondel, 7715 points) are at roughly 92% of their maximum, of the same season (Zmelik, 8627 and Blondel, 8387 points). And when one thinks about the out-of-this-world 96% performance of Dadic in a one-hour heptathlon, 6325 to 6552, the performance of Auzeil looks somewhat paltry. 

While writing this article I did revisit some of my old articles on decathlon variants. And I ended up invariably at the article on C. Beach's amazing 10 minute decathlon. (If you are a decathlon fan and haven't read it, take a minute to do so).

What is the problem of the one-day decathlon? This is best summarised in the words of M. Avilov, who won the olympic title in Munich, 1972, with a world record of 8454 points: "without the 400 and 1500 m I could easily do a decathlon in one day". And while one can argue that when it comes to the 1500 m one can use his last reserves, the 400 m poses a major difficulty. There is simply no way one can go all out in the 400 m and recover completely in the 4 hours resting period so as to attack the remaining events in top condition. Just to realise the impact of the 400 m it suffices to look at the performances of C. Beach in the 30-minute decathlon (where he scored 6242 points to be compared to his 8084 best). With a personal best of 46.72 s in the 400 m he ran in 53.26 s during the 30-min, followed by 16.96 s in the 110 m hurdles where he has a personal best of 14.23 s. And Beach is not just anybody: he is exceptionally resistant with a 3:59.13 personal best in a decathlon 1500 m (and an even better 1:47.36 in the 800 m). So, even with a 4-hour rest, the one-day decathletes must run a cautious 400 m and, even thus, their 110 m hurdles may be below par.

But let us go back to Fatieiev's proposals. He is worried by the fact that the decathlon, spread over two days, does not attract the interest of the un-informed spectator. Well, let us be serious: if somebody does not care about a two-day decathlon, would he be attracted to a one-day one? I beg to differ. Fatieiev proposes to reduce the number of attempts for throws and long jump to two instead of three. I don't see any appreciable time savings due to this. The proposal of Iron Déca organisers, to prepare the marks for jumps in advance, makes more sense. The one point where Fatieiev is correct is that a disproportionate time is spent in the two vertical jumps. But there is not much one can do about this. In a one-hour decathlon, where the stopwatch for the 1500 m starts at precisely 60 min, whether one is present at the start or not, the athletes have their own strategies for the vertical jumps. But what Fatieiev suggests is to limit the attempts to one at every next height or to allow for three attempts in total. In their article, the Gousset, comment that something like this would convert Athletics to Circus Games. I totally agree with them. Decathlon is the king of events in athletics (an event where, to date, women are banned from, due to World Athletics spinelessness). A two-day decathlon is a perfect event.  A one-hour one, albeit totally different, is equally perfect. A one-day decathlon a futile exercise in style. 

PS I have just watched the European Athletics team championships and I discovered a new rule applied to vertical jumps: an athlete is out after 4 misses (while at every height the regulatory 3 misses apply). Perhaps a 4 (or 6, or any number obtained after a statistical analysis of existing results) misses rule could be used to speed up the decathlon vertical jumps. This would make more sense than limting the number of attempts.

The first women's decathlon of the year

In a previous post of mine I included the announcement of the DécaMontreuil competition to be held on June 14-15. I was otherwise occupied that week-end and I could not follow the competition. 

My Décapassion friends were present and you can find a very nice collection of photos (and videos) from that competition on their facebook page and an analysis of the event in their blog.

Twelve female decathletes started in this event which served also as a qualifier for the national women's decathlon championship. Well, "Open de France" for the time being, but the difference is only in the name and there is good hope that it will soon become a championship on par with the men's event. It will be held over the week-end of July 26-27 in Thonon les Bains. 

And, what is more interesting, is that the results are listed in the World Athletics site.

You can follow this link and get the details of the competition. Let us hope that World Athletics will do the same with the 2nd women's decathlon world championships to be held in Ohio on August 16-17.

The Speed Project

A week or so ago I published an article on ultrarunning. A few days before publishing it I stumbled upon a mention of the "speed project" and I thought that it would be a great companion to the ultrarunning one. 

Here I think it's time for a disclosure. When I started publishing this blog I was writing the articles one at a time. Whenever I had time I was publishing a lot but when I was pressed for time, like when I was travelling, keeping the blog alive was becoming a challenge. I soon understood that I could not go on living "hand to mouth". I was going to need reserves. So, I changed my way of working. Whenever I have time, say on week-ends, I am preparing a blog post for future consumption. Sometimes the article in question can lay dormant for months in a row. This is often the case with articles that do not deal with current events but are of a more technical character. In that way I could boost the publication frequency from just over 30 article per year to over 40 and in fact, for 2020 and 2021, to over 50. (The lockdown did help a little). As you may have noticed I make a point of illustrating the posts with images and I try to have an article appear on the first day of the month. 

So the article on Backyard Ultra was written more than a year ago. But its companion on the Speed Project is fresh out of the presses. In fact what pushed me to try to find more about this crazy ultramarathon were the gorgeous images of people running in the desert. 

So what is this all about? It started in 2013 when a bunch of friends decided to run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, a distance of some 550 km, having to cross some really inhospitable places, like Death Valley. There are no real rules. There is no fixed route (only a prohibition to run on the highways). Thus the more adventurous participants try to find shortcuts that would allow them to save a few minutes. Not everybody is selected for the Speed Project. People usually apply (it's not clear how, since the race does not have a web-site) and then wait for an invitation to arrive. This calls for real motivation, but after all, one cannot embark on such a race without a solid motivation.

The format of the teams allows for a great freedom. The basic one is a 6 person team with 4 men and 2 women. That was the format of the very first race, the OG team. Over the years other formats made their appearance. There are pure feminine teams with 6 female runners. There are solo runners who decide to punish themselves running more than 500 km under the scorching sun. But of course freestyle teams are also allowed (if selected) without limit as to the number of participants. There are no rules for the relays. On can run one time or dozens of times, over 1 km or over 50 km. And nobody knows what is the best strategy (which of course depends on the team composition). 

The race records are impressive. In 2023 an OG team finished the race in under 30 hours, 29 hours and 21 minutes exactly. But what is more impressive is the solo record and it is held by a woman. In 2023 Lucy Scholz covered the 547 km separating Los Angeles to Las Vegas in 84 hours and 45 minutes. Just do the maths, that's more than 6 km per hour (but should be over 10 km/hr when one counts the incompressible amount of time for all bodily functions, sleep being the most time-consuming).

A few years back I wrote about the Spartathlon and the Pheidippides Run. The distance of the latter is not very far from the one of the Speed Project: 490 km from Athens to Sparta and back.  The only difference is that it is held in November and so the athletes do not have to run under the torrid greek sun. Last year the winner, Ivan Zaborski, literally exploded the record covering the distance in 52 hours and 52 minutes, and the second finisher was a woman, Irina Masanova, who also established a new record with 66 hours and 41 minutes. Typically less than 50 % of the participants to the Pheidippides Run manage to complete the race. There are no statistics concerning the Speed Project (in accordance with the deliberately secretive nature of the event) but since it is mainly a team event one expects the majority of the participating teams to complete the course.

Anna Hall did it!

Just two weeks back in my article on Grand Slam Track I was writing about Anna Hall:

[she is] to my opinion the best "young" heptathlete out there, the one that can succeed Thiam, and also the only one that can break N. Debois' legendary 800 m heptathlon record. 

It turned out that my words were prophetic (or simply, I got lucky). 

Competing in the Hypomeeting at Götzis Hall broke the heptathlon world best performance over 800 m. Nadine Debois had established the exceptional performance of 2:01.84 in 1987 during the European Cup of combined events. It had resisted during 38 years despite some worthwhile attacks over the years. The one who came closer was I. Belova, during the 2001 Hypomeeting where she finished in 2:02.06, but Belova had been previously sanctioned for doping, so one does not know what to think about her performance. (I am telling the story of the heptathlon/decathlon 800/1500 m, in my article "Facing the calvary" and one of the rare interviews in this blog is one with N. Debois).

After the end of javelin throw I rushed to find out the performance needed for Hall to break the 7000 points barrier. It was around 2:03, something that was perfectly in her possibilities. But Hall went all out and was rewarded not only with a 7k+ total but also by a new heptathlon 800 m record with 2:01.23. She started the competition with a, slightly below par, 13.19 s in the 100 m hurdles but then exploded in the high jump with 1.95 m personal best, followed by one in the shot put with 14.86 m and finishing the first day with 23.37 s in the 200 m. The long jump was the event where she might have  squandered her chances at 7k. She fouled the first jump and when I saw the second I was afraid that it was a foul too. However it turned out that it was OK with millimetre precision and with 6.44 m she stayed on track. She segued with a personal best of 46.16 m at the javelin and with her superb 800 m she completed her heptathlon with 7032 points on par with C. Kluft, ahead of Thiam and second only to Joyner-Kersee, becoming the fifth woman in history to break the 7000 points barrier.

Behind her S. Dokter and M. Araujo were drawn to great performances, a personal best for the former with 6576 and an area record for the latter with 6475 points.

The Götzis Hypomeeting was also a great competition for the men's decathlon. Perhaps even of higher quality than the women's event with the presence of the best decathletes in the world, the only absence being that of the olympic champion, M. Rooth. (And, no, I am not going to mention Mayer. At this point it is not clear whether a come-back is possible). 

However, if you wish to have an "live" account of the men's event it is best to visit the Décapassion page. My friend, F. Gousset made the trip to Austria, followed the competition in Götzis and brought back plenty of video-clips and photos. So, click on the link, go visit Décapassion (and don't worry if you don't speak french, today's AI tools can make an excellent job at translating). 

And if you are in Paris the week-end of June 14-15 (I'm not: I will be swimming at the Masters Finswimming world championships) you could go watch the Déca Meeting, organised by the Club Athlétique de Montreuil (that's the club of F. and P. Gousset). There is a women's decathlon in the program.

PS And a very detailed analysis of the Götzis competition can now be found on the main site of Décapassion. Don't miss it!

On ultrarunning

Last year I ran across an article in the Big Dog's Backyard Ultra. The term "backyard ultra" was familiar to me, since four years ago I published an article on the "Quarantine Backyard Ultra race". I read the article and I must say that I was impressed. So, I decided to learn more about this crazy event. 

Let's start with the rules.

The athletes run on a loop which must be 6705.6 m long. 

In case you wonder where this crazy measure came from, well, it has, once more, to do with those pesky imperial measures. And, no, the length is not a round number in miles. It was calculated so that 24 repetitions of the loop add exactly to 100 miles. You can now guess where this 24 comes from.

The athletes start at precisely every hour. 

Each loop must be completed within the hour.

The winner is the last person to complete a loop. 

This last point has as a consequence that if nobody can complete an extra loop there is no winner to the event. 

I don't think it can get crazier than this. The participants have to run and run and run till they are unable to go on. And the last one to stand, when all the others have fallen, wins. This sounds like the dance marathons that had flourished during the Great Depression in the 30s. (If you wish to learn more about the dance marathons of the 30s I suggest you read this article. It is more entertaining than the Wikipedia one).

Last year's Backyard Ultra competition resulted in a new record of 450 miles covered in 108 hours.  Just do the maths: 108 hours means 4 and a half days. Without sleeping! 

While perusing the Wikipedia article on the Backyard Ultra I saw a photo of a precursor of ultra races, one Eugene Estoppey who, in 1910, ran one mile per hour for 1000 hours (that's over 40 days). He managed this by sleeping for half an hour at a time although he did not total much more than four hours of sleep every day. He had a respectable personal record of 4:40 on the mile and he ran the first of his hourly miles in 5:35. His completing successfully his endeavour was celebrated by an article in the New York Times. 

From Wikipedia I jumped to the Ultrarunning Magazine and an article on Estoppey by J. Oakes. What attracted my attention was a note at the end of the article with a reference to an older one by P. Lovesey, a historical article on 19th-century running feats. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall. However, the top of the article is visible, as a teaser, and I could read that Ron Grant had just completed a 1000-hour run where he covered 2.5 kilometres every hour.

Is the 1000-hour race the longest one? Apparently, not. The Trans-America footrace is way longer, with runners covering more than 5000 km. The current record is held by Robert Young in 482 hours and 10 minutes, covering 5032 km from California to Maryland. And, in case you were wondering, women are also participating in those crazy events, the record being held by Jennifer Bradley in 720 hours and 27 minutes for 5316 km (where she finished less than one hour behind the winner of the event who holds the record for the San Francisco-Key West race).

Reading all those articles on ultrarunning I must say that I am amazed by the suffering that people are ready to inflict upon themselves. But, still, I find the 100+ hours of sleepless continuous effort mind-boggling. And, I just found out that the record of sleep deprivation is slightly longer than 11 days or almost 19 days, depending on your sources. But this is taking us too far from the scope of this blog so I prefer to stop here and let you hunt down (if you are interested) these sleep deprivation experiments. But, reading them, I am now convinced that we have not yet reached the limit of the backyard ultra performances.