Cheating on World Athletics’ Front Page

Some days ago, World Athletics published an article about the 2026 World Athletics Race Walking Team Championships. It was accompanied by a photo of race walkers in action, and, unmistakably, one of them was running.

The photo was taken at the 2024 championships held in Antalya, in the 20 km race. The athlete caught running was none other than the fourth-place finisher, Yuta Koga from Japan. That was no accident. In fact, Koga received two red cards during the race for “loss of contact.” He was not alone: half of the participants had at least one red card, most of them, like Koga, for loss of contact, and some for “bent knee.”

It may be best at this point to recall the definition of race walking. According to the World Athletics rules in force:

Race Walking is a progression of steps so taken that the walker makes contact with the ground so that no visible (to the human eye) loss of contact occurs. The advancing leg must be straightened (i.e. not bent at the knee) from the moment of first contact with the ground until the vertical upright position.

A race walker who infringes these rules may receive a red card, and after three red cards from different judges, the athlete is disqualified. In fact, the situation is more complex. There is also the yellow paddle, which serves as a caution to warn a walker that they are at risk of breaking the rules, for example, potential loss of contact or bent knee, but it does not count as an official infringement. The yellow paddle is shown to the athlete, while red cards are sent privately to the chief judge. An athlete may accumulate up to three red cards, but upon the fourth, they are disqualified. (The judge signals the disqualification by showing a red paddle.)

All is well and good, were it not for the words in parentheses in the definition of race walking. The loss of contact must be visible to the human eye. Unfortunately, the human eye is not a precise instrument; while photo and video captures reveal infringements, judges often miss them. No harm, no foul, you might say. Perhaps. But the fact remains that race walking has become a discipline in which athletes learn to cheat just enough not to get caught. World Athletics once considered using special sensors in the athletes’ shoes, but following a revolt by race walkers, shelved the project.

And now, they seem to encourage cheating, by featuring a photo of a “race runner” on their own web page.

PS After I had finished writing this article (but hadn't yet published it) World Athletics posted another article on the upcoming Race Walking Team Championships. This time they accompanied it with a photo of the women's 20 km race from two years ago. 

Giorgi was later disqualified with four red cards for loss of contact but Yin finished 12th without a single red card. Well, had I been a judge, I would have given her one.

PS2 And another photo from World Athletics.

They are publishing new ones every day. Fortunately, the competition starts in a few days. 

The World 2026 indoors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispelling myths about distance running

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transgender question is still not settled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaporflys or how supershoes changed the Marathon forever

Those who follow my blog have noticed that I have a great esteem for Ross Tucker, a renowned sports physiologist. Together with his colleague Jonathan Dugas, Tucker had a blog entitled "The Science of Sport". It was active from 2007 to 2013 and then went silent. The last post in the blog was on the sub-2 hour marathon. And the title expressed clearly the authors reservations: "Is the sub-2 hour marathon imminent? Don't hold your breath". Well, it turned out that they were somewhat pessimistic or rather they didn't predict the revolution that would take hold of long distance running in the years to come. And six years after the Science of Sport article, Eliud Kipchoge ran the first sub-2 marathon in history.

In 2013 the men's marathon world record was held by W. Kipsang with 2:03.23. The women's records were established back in 2003 (mixed race) and 2005 (women only) by P. Radcliffe with 2:15:15 and 2:17:42. Today the men's record is held by the late K. Kiptum with 2:00:35 and the women's records are held by R. Chepngetich (mixed race) with 2:09:56 and P. Jepchirchir (women only) with 2:16:16. Just to put the women's records in the right perspective, the men's 2:10 barrier was broken in 1967 by D. Clayton. (At that time no woman had run under 3 hours). And what is happening it's not only due to some exceptional individuals. We are witnessing a real revolution in long distance running. One can argue that what we observe is due to better training and a ripple effect where the performance of the leaders reverberates through the whole runner community. Maybe so. But there is one factor that has undeniably contributed to the explosion of performances: shoes.

But let us start at the beginning. At the end of the 90s the team of the Human Performance Laboratory of the University of Calgary started interesting themselves in the effect of shoe bending stiffness on jump height performance. In order to increase the stiffness they inserted a carbon fibre plate into the shoe midsole.

The initial studies were targeting high jump but subsequent studies extended the subject to that of running economy. It was well known at the time that the energy put in on the metatarsophalangeal joint (the joint between the metatarsals and he toes) is not returned when pushing off. Using shoes with inserted carbon plates reduces the energy dissipated in these joints. The Calgary research showed running energy savings of approximately 1% when using a stiff midsole as compared to a "normal" one. To put the result in perspective (since the energy expenditure for running is proportional to the athlete's velocity) a 1% gain would mean shaving off more than a minute from the time of a marathon for an elite runner.

Curiously the Calgary study did not have any impact on the shoe industry for more than a decade. It was around 2015, when people from the Calgary lab went to work at Nike, that the new shoe generation saw the light. The first modification with respect to the initial design was a bent plate. The reason is that a flat plate makes it actually harder for the calves to push up. The team of the Locomotion Lab at the University of Colorado studied the prototype of the shoes that would become known as the Vaporflys and found that they lowered the energetic cost of running by 4%.

Kipchoge did attempt an under-2 marathon using Vaporflys in 2016 in the Breaking2 event held in Monza. He came tantalisingly close to the 2-hour barrier, completing his run in 2:00:25. While the course design was legitimate (flat course) the remaining conditions (like the use of rotating pacemakers shielding the star runner and the use of a car projecting a laser beam to aid pacing) made that the record could not be homologated. 

While the people of the Calgary lab attribute the energy gain to the stiff plate, the Colorado team's opinion is more reserved. For them the metabolic savings of the shoes appear to be due to a superior energy storage in the midsole foam, the clever lever effects of the carbon-fibre plate on the ankle joint mechanics, and the stiffening effects of the plate on the metatarsophalangeal joint. Apparently the midsole foam plays an important role. When the foot hits the ground the sole deforms and some energy is lost. However in today's "supershoes" better foams result in diminished energy loss. (And Nike did further improve upon this by introducing air-filled rubber cushioning).

Following these studies Nike came up with a better model, the Alphafly. Kipchoge used them in Vienna in 2019 at the Ineos 1:59 Challenge and this time the 2-hour barrier did fall. Today Alphaflys are available to anybody who can afford the rather stiff price. 

The other brands have caught up with Nike and this explains the explosion of records. World Athletics are trying to put some order in this. They require that shoes be on the market for a month before they can be used in an official competition. Moreover there are limiting the stacking height (the amount of material between the foot and the ground) for track events to 20 mm. However the marathon shoes are allowed to have a 40 mm stack height. Some people are speaking about "shoe doping". I believe that this choice of words is most unfortunate since nobody is cheating and everybody has access to the new shoes. But it remains that they give the athletes a massive advantage. 

If you wish to learn more on supershoes, I suggest that you read an excellent article on Runners World.

Speaking of the advantage offered by the shoes reminds me of a controversy going back to the 50s. In 1957 Yuri Stepanov, a soviet high jumper, broke the World Record with a 2.16 m jump. When photos of the record attempt were circulated people noticed that Stepanov was wearing a shoe with a thick sole on his take-off leg. 

People cried foul (some were talking about a 4 cm "trampoline" but a closer examination of the photo, as well as other photos of Stepanov in competition, point at a thickness not exceeding 2 cm). In absence of specific rules the IAAF homologated the record and proceeded to limit the shoe sole thickness to 13 mm. This limit has been raised today to 20 mm. (But as P.J. Vazel is pointing out, it is not clear that an elevated shoe offers any advantage in the Fosbury style, it might even present some risk due to the quite different take-off technique). While Stepanov's sole thickness would have been acceptable with today's rules, back in 1957 he was heavily criticised by the media. Being mentally fragile he foundered into depression, alcoholism and committed suicide in 1963, at just 31 years of age.

PS And when we thought we had seen everything, along came the running sandals. 

B. Kiplimo won a Marathon in Thailand running with carbon-plated sandals. Now, how can anybody run 42 km with this kind of shoes is a mystery to me. But Kiplimo did it and won the race in a respectable 2:18:55 time. 

A bizarre theory on world records

Some time ago I stumbled upon an article, on BBC of all things. The title was "Why world records seem to be getting harder to beat - according to maths". I was intrigued and I decided to read the article. And once I read it I was really annoyed. How can one pretend, using bogus premises, that mathematics are explaining the new records paucity? 

But let us start at the beginning. The article starts with the, by now almost mandatory, tribute to M. Duplantis, who, by the way is the living proof that records are not getting harder to beat. The author of the article feels compelled to explain the pole vault records, who are in clear contradiction with the title and the thesis he will present later. He does this by invoking improvements in diet, technique or equipment. (Perhaps Mama Duplantis was feeding her offspring a special diet?). And then we goes on to remark that the long jump record is standing unbroken since 1991. Up to that point things are more or less acceptable, in particular, if one  complements "diet" by medical monitoring and aftercare. But the worse is still to come.

The author segues his introduction with a short paragraph where he presents his main argument. In his own words:

 "We refer to these sorts of situations (in which further improvement is impossible and differences between an athlete's performances come down to "luck") as "stationary", in the sense that the overall trend in average behaviour is unchanging. Given a stationary system, we can ask how often we should expect records to fall due to random fluctuations". 

And, just so that people get to understand what he means by this, he presents an example of rain records in various cities ending up with a harmonic series. (The later is the series one gets by adding the inverses of the successive integers 1+1/2+1/3+ 1/4 and so on). A graphic is also given which, supposedly, justifies the authors assumptions.

Well, what are these assumptions? First the stationarity one. It is a clear abuse of the term, in particular when one invokes mathematics. Neither the record situation nor the harmonic series are stationary. But, let us accept that the author decided to simplify the situation in order to make it palatable to us mere mortals. (Referring to the increase of the harmonic series as logarithmic would have probably discouraged the majority of his readers). But the really faulty premise is attributing the establishing of new records to random fluctuations. Nothing is further from the truth. What it takes for a new record is to have a talented athlete. Once the latter matures one expects a series of records by the same person a scenario that we have seen time and again in Athletics. The difficulty is to find the really gifted individuals, but, pretending that the process is random, is pure heresy. 

Now let's get serious. What do real, scientific, analyses say about the evolution of records? A team of researchers of various universities in the Paris region addressed the question (and in fact in a broader setting, as evidenced by the title of their article "Are we reaching the limits of Homo sapiens?"). They analysed a vast amount of data from various sports. In the figure below they show the evolution of the 10 best women's performances for 800 m, high jump and shot put. It is clear from the graphic that starting from the late 80s the performances stagnate and even decline in the case of shot put. But may one draw a sound conclusion based on this graphic? Definitely not. The 80s marked the beginning of a strict anti-doping control era and this changed dramatically the performances. 

The next graphic, where they show the evolution of the world record relative improvement is more instructive. The downward trend of the mean confirms that records are indeed more difficult to break as time goes by.

Does this mean that we are approaching some limit? This is a question that a team of the Guanghan university in China has addressed in an extensive statistical analysis, spanning 23 sports and involving the performances of more than 6000 athletes. If you are interested in the question, you can download freely their article at the url https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-65350-4. But, to put it in a nutshell, they conclude that "...human beings have not yet reached sports limits in athletic performance, suggesting a continuous improvement over time". 

Will this mean that we will see new world records? Definitely, yes. Will breaking records become more difficult? Certainly. Will the process be a random one? Only in the sense that exceptional individuals (the ones that can break world records) cannot (yet) be produced on demand. But invoking the harmonic series in order to explain what is happening is, to my eyes, pure clickbait.

On bad scoring tables

As my regular readers know, I am a fan of scoring tables. And that has been true since a very tender age of 10. I cannot explain why this subject fascinates me, but there we are. Whenever I see a scoring table I feel immediately an attraction. From the outset in this blog, scoring was at the centre of interest. Already the fourth published article talks about scoring, and a whole series entitled "Theories of Scoring" appeared in 2021-22. Scoring was the subject of several articles of mine published in the New Studies in Athletics (alas, now defunct, killed by the belt-tightening measures of Lord Sebastian). And it is, of course, the origin of my collaboration with G. Purdy. While writing these lines I realise that I have never published the article I had promised in "A brief history of the IAAF/WA scoring tables" explaining the relation of the World Athletics scoring tables to the Weibull distribution and moreover I have never presented the results of my collaboration with G. Purdy. One day I will keep my word and explain in detail the relation between performance distribution and scoring.

But let's go back to the current business. As you may know, I am a subscriber to the newsletter of Art of Manliness. Contrary to what woke-brainwashed persons might think, the site is anything but macho. Of course it caters to men's interests and lifestyle, and some people find that they tend to romanticize older stuff, but, frankly, most of its articles (shaving excluded) would be useful to women too. From time to time they publish Army-related articles and they always attract my interest. In case you didn't know, I am a big Army fan. I like the Army discipline, even when it verges on the absurd. Discipline, even exaggerated one, is better than no discipline at all. (I just hope that you are not taken aback by my militaristic tendencies). 

No, it's not modern pentathlon

In an article entitled "Are you combat ready?" (reprinted from one published in 2016) AoM were talking about the "Physical Combat Proficiency Test" of the US Army. The test was designed to assess the soldiers' agility, coordination, and ability to perform what the Army calls “warrior tasks”. The test was introduced in 1969 and was replaced by the Army Physical Fitness Test in 1980. Several iterations and modifications of the latter existed up to 2025 where the Army Fitness Test was introduced (but some people consider the PCPT to be the high-water mark for the Army’s physical training tests).  

What was most interesting in the AoM article was the inclusion of the scoring table for the mile run (the last of five events of the PCPT). Mind you, the mile was to be run in uniform pants and boots, so don't be hard on judging the times.

Once I saw the table I could not resist the temptation. I read off the points and the times and I converted the latter to mean velocity. As I have explained in my article "Theories of scoring: the energetic cost approach", the energetic cost of running is essentially proportional to the velocity, in particular for middle-distance running. But this is something that scoring-table builders are systematically ignoring. As a consequence, the creators of the PCPT mile-run scoring table produced a perfectly regressive table where the points grow roughly as a power 2/3 of the velocity. 

But they are in very good company. In fact, since the introduction of the 1985 tables, that were meant to repair the damages done by the Ulbrich tables, we are living with tables that are regressive for track events. Below I give the corresponding fit for the 1500 m of the decathlon scoring tables.

Apart from the initial part of the curve corresponding to very low velocities, the scoring is regressive, the points growing roughly as a power 3/4 of the velocity. 

I mentioned Ulbrich in the previous paragraph. In fact, he was the one who understood that the quantity in which the tables must be cast for track events is the velocity. His fatal mistake was to assume that velocity was the quantity that was determining the performance in field events. Well, it is, but not the velocity itself. The energy expenditure for field events is proportional to its square. By introducing a scoring proportional to the velocity for field events, Ulbrich introduced a counter-productive regressivity. You can read about this in my post on theories of scoring.

The scoring tables I proposed in collaboration with G. Purdy are strictly progressive for all events. On the same point of progressivity, my Décapassion friends, F. et P. Gousset, make the remark that the current tables for throws are only slightly progressive and this lack of strong progressivity throws the tables off balance. I have promised the Gousset that one day we'll write a joint article on this point. (And when this is done I will give here at least an "executive" summary).

The best of the best of 2025 (according to Athletics Podium)

On several occasions I mentioned in this blog the excellent site "Athletics Podium". It is run by the turkish sports journalist S.F. Erbay, accompanied by a team of contributing editors. I cannot think of any better athletics-oriented site on the web. My Turkish neighbours are really the best and, on several occasions, they have pleasantly surprised me with the originality of their articles. (I must confess that quite often I am jealous when I compare the quality of their site to my blog, but, I console myself with the thought that I am a one-man operation).

At the end of the year they published their year's best athletes list and I must say that I found it original to the point that I had to share it with you. 

They did not follow the World Athletics classification of track, field and out-of-stadium, neither one like mine that lists, roughly, the ten best of each sex. The Athletics Podium people decided to list the best by continent, with America split, as usual to South America and NACAC (which stands for North America, Central America and the Caribbeans). They ended up with the following lists

WOMEN

Melissa Jefferson-Wooden (NACAC) and World
Maria Perez (EUR)
Beatrice Chebet(AFR)
Salwa Eid Naser (ASI)
Natalia Linares (S.AM)
Nicola Olyslagers (OCE)

MEN

Armand Duplantis(EUR) and World
Busang Kebinatshipi (AFR)
Sang-Hyeok Woo (ASI)
Caio Bonfim (S.AM)
Geordie Beamish (OCE)
Ethan Katzberg (NACAC)

I find the list interesting but also somewhat surprising. M. Jefferson-Wooden best of the World?  I would put at least three athletes ahead of her. At least B. Chebet gets plaudits for Africa, but this left no place for F. Kipyegon. (Sometimes choices are hard). N. Linares instead of J. Angulo, M. Perez instead of F. Bol or D. Kambundji would have also been my choices but, frankly, how can one ignore S. McLaughlin?   On the men's side I was happy to see that B. Kebinatshipi did get a mention (although that was at the expense of E. Wanyonyi).

The "Rising Stars" are called "Prospects" by the Athletics Podium people. And out of the 12 names I had to look up almost half of them.

Europe: Kelly-Ann Douala Edimo and Jarno van Daalen 
Africa: Prestina Ochonogor and Justice Oratile 
Asia: Puripol Boonson and Yan Ziyi 
NACAC: Liranyi Alonso and Kamari Kennedy 
South America: Maria Maturana and Ricardo Montes de Oca 
Oceania: Reki Selita Roberts and Gout Gout 

As you may have noticed I am not very good when it comes to the Rising Stars list (although I feel that I have made some progress these last years). So, I don't have major objections to the list above. But, still, I think that if there is one young European athlete who merits the distinction that's Hubert Trościanka. (But then, I am a combined event aficionado, so this explains that). 

I mentioned F. Kipyegon, S. McLaughlin and E. Wanyonyi as being left on the shelf. Well, apart from F. Kipyegon, the other two got a mention in the "Top Performances" list. I reproduce it below but I don't know if the order means something.

MEN

1) Armand Duplantis - 6.30m (PV)
2) Emmanuel Wanyonyi - 1:41.86 (800 m)
3) Mykolas Alekna - 75.56m (DT)
4) Rai Benjamin - 46.52 (400 m H)
5) Jacob Kiplimo - 56:42 (Half Marathon)

WOMEN

1) Beatrice Chebet - 13:58.06 (5000 m)
2) Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone - 47.78 (400 m)
3) Anna Hall - 7032 pts (Heptathlon)
4) Ditaji Kambundji - 12.24 (100 m H)
5) Valarie Allman - 73.52m (DT)

It is my feeling that F. Kipyegon's 1500 m 3:48.68 World Record (and her 3000 m 8:07.04 one) should have secured her a place in the Top Performances list. But where I strongly disagree with the AP list is with Rai Benjamin 46.52 s performance trumping the 46.28 of K. Warholm. We are talking performance here and world champion or not, Benjamin does not have the best performance of the year. At least I console myself seeing two throwers and one combined-event athlete included in the top-5 list, as well as J. Kiplimo who was totally ignored by World Athletics in their out-of-stadium choices.

Although I do not agree with all the Athletics Podium choices, I find their approach most interesting and very well researched. But, of course, this is not astonishing: as I said already, they are the best in what they do. So, if you haven't already done so, bookmark their site and think about visiting it regularly.

On the forbidden cartwheel

I have written, on several occasions, on the "spanish style" for javelin throw. It is in fact a permanent regret of mine that this style was banned and it is not used even for demonstrations. A commenter on my article "The javelin controversy" wrote:

The barra vasca [the throwing style of which led to the spanish one for javelin] was the same for javelin as Fosbury flop was for high jump. The javelin community was appalled: "That's not how you are supposed to throw it!".

With the spinners dominating the shot put, it is now clear that the rotational style is the most efficient one for all throws. So why prohibit it in the case of javelin? But this article is not about javelin. Those who are interested in the latter can read my article on the "javelin puzzle" and track my other articles on the same subject from there.

World Athletics is known for their over-conservative attitude. They only allow something revolutionary (like the fibreglass poles) when they are caught unawares by the evolution of styles or implements and cannot preempt it. 

At the beginning on the 00s, Veronika Watzek, an austrian thrower, invented a new rotational throwing technique, the cartwheel. 

(The thrower in the gif above is not V. Watzek)

Nicky Watzek was more of a discus thrower with a 58+ m personal best (and a 15 m shot put record). Googling for photos of her one finds plenty where she is throwing the discus and in fact the logo of her current enterprise "Athletic Academy" depicts a discus thrower.

It has been impossible to find out whether Watzek's shot put personal best was obtained with the cartwheel style. But I did find an article on a young german thrower who decided to try out the cartwheel style. Certainly his past as a gymnast (which by the way was true also for Nicky Watzek) was helping. Starting with a personal best of 10.98 with the 6 kg shot he had a series of shots culminating to to 13.49 m. Does this suffice in order to conclude that the cartwheel technique presents an advantage over the more conventional ones? Certainly not, but it is a clear indication that exploring different techniques, in particular ones that appear revolutionary, may lead to a progress in performances.

When Watzek introduced the cartwheel the latter obeyed perfectly the rules which stated:

The shot shall be put from the shoulder with one hand only. At the time an athlete takes a stance in the circle to commence a put, the shot shall touch or be in close proximity to the neck or the chin and the hand shall not be dropped below this position during the action of putting. The shot shall not be taken behind the line of the shoulders.

And then the codicil appeared:

Cartwheeling techniques are not permitted.

The official reason: cartwheeling is not safe enough. Of course this is pure hogwash. The real reason is that, were the cartwheel method to be proven more effective, there would have been a monstrous push-back by the existing elite who are throwing in one of the "classical", glide or spin, styles. So WA banned the cartwheel style and that's that. 

End credits for Grand Slam Track

The Grand Slam Track adventure is officially over. On December 18th, GST filed for bankruptcy, acknowledging a debt that can reach 50 million dollars. A part of this debt corresponds to payments to elite athletes, payments that have not been honoured. Big track stars like Sydney McLaughlin, Gabby Thomas or Kenny Bednarek are awaiting payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I don't think that the collaterals of GST will suffice to pay them one day. 

Created by Michael Johnson the project was launched with big fanfare and the support of the World Athletic president, S. Coe. It had attracted some of the bigger names of Athletics, like the ones I cited above but also M. Jefferson-Wooden, A. Hall. M. Arop, J. Hull, S. Eid Naser, A. Dos Santos, M. Paulino, O. Seville, to name but a few. (You can find the full list at the GST website that is still online, for the time being). 

The GST circuit staged its inaugural event in Kingston (Jamaica) and it was a financial flop. Despite the participation of big stars it attracted little interest and did not manage to create a buzz. It was followed by events in Miami and Philadelphia but then the final, scheduled for Los Angeles in June, was cancelled. At that point everybody, both suppliers and athletes, became aware of the crisis. GST tried to find an arrangement with suppliers, proposing that they accept a payment of 50% of what they were due, and a rumour circulated that sponsors, injecting an emergency funding, were secured and that at least half of the athletes' outstanding payments would be covered. Well, that turned out to be wishful thinking.

So, what happens now? Well, Lord Sebastian who had welcomed the project is now more circumspect. He stated that Grand Slam Track might not be allowed to return in 2026, stressing that events must have a "sustainable, solid financial model". 

I really like this photo of Coe 

The InsidetheGames site concluded their article on the GST bankruptcy with the phrase: "The toxic mix of heavy liabilities, fractured creditors and an absence of immediate capital leaves Grand Slam Track facing one of the starkest viability crises seen in professional athletics in recent years". But every cloud has a silver lining: thanks to the disaster of GST, we will be getting rid of M. Johnson.

Carles Baronet re-launches a newsletter

If you are a regular reader of my blog you have certainly met the name of Carles Baronet. He is a renowned Catalan Athletics statistician and for many years he was publishing the blog Trackinsun. Then he switched from the blog to a newsletter. From 2023 his newsletter became subscription-only, but after two years he decided that having subscribers was too much of a stress and decided to go back to the previous, free, formula.

So, from January 2026, the newsletter is completely free, allowing Carles to work on the statistics without pressure and with a lower depth of marks. Having more time he plans to compile the year's top 300 marks (well, up to) in each event, as well as a thorough selection of European athletes who are in the United States.

The name Trackinsun is always present. And the first newsletter of 2026 is just out. It's a very detailed one, with results from all over the World. It comes in two versions, pdf and docx. The author believes that the pictures are best viewed in the docx version, but, frankly, those of the pdf are perfectly viewable.

If you are interested in Athletics (otherwise, why are you reading this blog?) I suggest that you send a mail to C. Baronet (just click here) and subscribe to his newsletter. You will discover a whole world of Athletics that you haven't suspected till that moment. People are competing in Athletics all over the world. And not all of them are (or hope to become) big stars who figure (or hope to) in the World Athletics website. I find that really uplifting and thanks to Carles Baronet this information is coming to your mailbox every month. Subscribe!

The 4x100 women's 2000 olympic relay, or how France's medal was stolen

The reason I decided to write this article was this superb photo.

Some time ago World athletics published an article entitled "Saluting the Bahamian Golden Girls 25 years on". It was celebrating the victory of the Bahamas' women team in the 4x100 m relay of the 2000, Sydney, Olympics. It's a very nice article and I highly recommend it (all the more so, if you are of the generation who has experienced the Sydney Olympics live). And if you wish to revisit the race, the video is on YouTube. (If you are younger, you will be surprised by the bad quality of the video. This was the era of the crappy NTSC, an analog system with 480 lines and 4:3 aspect ratio. We have made an incredible progress since that time).

The team of Bahamas were the logical favourite, having won the world title the previous year in Sevilla. France was second on that occasion with Jamaica third and the US fourth. But the Sydney final was a totally different matter. The US team had as anchor none other than Marion Jones who had dominated the 100 m race (and 200 m and had won bronze in the long jump). 

The regular readers of my blog know that there are athletes that I like and others that I don't. M. Jones was part of the second group from the very first day. The media were ecstatic when speaking about her, something I could not stand. (Just as I could not stand the total absence of style in her long jump. You know my feelings about King Carl. But I have always granted that he was the best stylist ever in the long jump. Jones was one of the worst). 

M. Jones went to Sydney announcing that she intended to win five gold medals. (She was also part of the 4x400 m relay that won the race). So she managed to realise 60% of her prediction. And a few years later that was transformed to 0%. I will not go into all the sordid details of the M. Jones doping affair. Jones had been accused of doping from the outset of her career. Already at high school she missed a random drug test and was banned for four years from track and field competitions. She claimed that she was never informed about the test and managed to get the ban overturned. In Sydney there was a minor scandal involving her then husband, shot-putter C.J. Hunter. He was present as Jones' coach, having withdrawn from competition for an alleged knee injury. And then the real reason became known: he had, prior to the Olympics, failed antidoping tests, being positive for steroids. (As a result his coaching accreditation was revoked). Things came to a head years later, when V. Conte, the founder of BALCO, stated publicly, in 2004, that Jones had been doping already before the 2000 Olympics. Jones denied the accusations but in 2006 a sample of her urine tested positive in EPO. She was cleared of doping allegations after the examination of the B sample but the cogs of justice were turning. And finally in 2007 Jones confessed that she had been using steroids, already before the Sydney Olympics. She was suspended for two years and all her results from September 1, 2000 were anuled. And so the career of one of the first T&F female millionaire came to a sad end. 

But this article is not about M. Jones. It's about the disqualification and the medals. M. Jones was active till 2006, participating in high-level competitions. Her results were, quite understandably anuled. But just try to find them anywhere. World Athletics has decided to publish pages upon pages like the screenshot below, where no results are given but just the mention -(DQ).

I cannot imagine a worse display of disrespect for Athletics than this. How can anybody who supposedly loves Athletics do this? What is the point in telling us that M. Jones participated in this and that competition without giving her performances? Would have been so difficult to keep them, adding on each line the code DQ, indicating that the performances were anulled? By making tabula rasa of all post 01/09/2000 performances, WA reminds me of the rewriting of history that is so popular in autocratic states.

The IAAF (that's what World Athletics was called at the time) recommended to the IOC that the two US women's relays be disqualified, due to the presence of M. Jones. That's what happened. Initially. France, having finished fourth in the 4x100 m was promoted to third. Same for Nigeria, who was fourth in the 4x400 m relay. Alas, that was short lived. The US brought the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, invoking a legal vacuum (there was no clear rule disqualifying a team because of a doping offense of one of its members) and obtained a favourable judgement. So M. Jones appears in the official World Athletics page with Olympic honours, gold and bronze medals in Sydney. What a shame!

And the unfair decision of CAS robbed France (and Nigeria) of a medal. Still we have this great photo where one can see D. Ferguson celebrating, ahead of M. Ottey and C. Arron, with M. Onyali on the left and half of M. Jones. (I cannot imagine why WA did things halfway. They could have taken Jones completely out of the picture). Both Ottey and Arron look clearly disappointed. Ottey would have hoped to win the gold medal for Jamaica. (No, I am not going to tell the story of the controversy around M. Ottey's participation in the 4x100 m relay final. I am too big a fan of Ottey to enter these unsavoury gossips. If you are interested you have to find out for yourselves). And Arron was unfortunately no match for the steroid-enhanced Jones. But she got her vengeance three years later in the Paris World Championships.