Track and Field (and Road) Athletics

[Ian Volante]

The podium shots are really weird by the way. Only showing the winner rather than a proper shot of all three and it has this weird sponsor background rather than just being out in the open in the stadium. Really horrible to look at.

I was quite happy that the medals were handed out immediately after the race, and I could almost completely ignore podium-related shenanigans.

[Gavin Chipper]

Gudaf Tsegay just got 14:00.21 for the 5000m. The 14-minute barrier suddenly looks breakable! Faith Kipyegon needs to take another shot at it.

[Gavin Chipper]

Duplantis WR in the pole vault.

[Marc Meakin]

Gudaf Tsegay just got 14:00.21 for the 5000m. The 14-minute barrier suddenly looks breakable! Faith Kipyegon needs to take another shot at it.

5 seconds is amazing

[Marc Meakin]

Assefa breaks the women's Marathon record

[Gavin Chipper]

Assefa breaks the women's Marathon record

From 2:14:04 to 2:11:53. Absolutely massive. Some people think all the new shoes devalue the records.

[Fiona T]

Assefa breaks the women's Marathon record

From 2:14:04 to 2:11:53. Absolutely massive. Some people think all the new shoes devalue the records.

Yeah everyone should run bare-footed a-la Zola Budd

[Gavin Chipper]

Assefa breaks the women's Marathon record

From 2:14:04 to 2:11:53. Absolutely massive. Some people think all the new shoes devalue the records.

Yeah everyone should run bare-footed a-la Zola Budd

Well yes. Some people think that these new shoes are somehow "cheating", but unless you ban all shoes, then where do you draw the line? How good does a shoe need to be before it "artificially" aids your performance? I suppose the problem is not how good they are as a standalone, but that they are continually getting better, meaning that it's harder to compare times from previous years. There must be diminishing returns with these super shoes though, especially as there is a maximum stack height for the shoe.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

Swimming faced a similar problem: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-bo ... id=9437780

There's also the javelin redesigns that reduced the potential distance one could be thrown, although they reset the records at the same time.

[Marc Meakin]

From 2:14:04 to 2:11:53. Absolutely massive. Some people think all the new shoes devalue the records.

Yeah everyone should run bare-footed a-la Zola Budd

Well yes. Some people think that these new shoes are somehow "cheating", but unless you ban all shoes, then where do you draw the line? How good does a shoe need to be before it "artificially" aids your performance? I suppose the problem is not how good they are as a standalone, but that they are continually getting better, meaning that it's harder to compare times from previous years. There must be diminishing returns with these super shoes though, especially as there is a maximum stack height for the shoe.

I used to think that middle distance records were slightly tarnished by having a pacemaker.

[Jon O'Neill]

From 2:14:04 to 2:11:53. Absolutely massive. Some people think all the new shoes devalue the records.

Yeah everyone should run bare-footed a-la Zola Budd

Well yes. Some people think that these new shoes are somehow "cheating", but unless you ban all shoes, then where do you draw the line? How good does a shoe need to be before it "artificially" aids your performance? I suppose the problem is not how good they are as a standalone, but that they are continually getting better, meaning that it's harder to compare times from previous years. There must be diminishing returns with these super shoes though, especially as there is a maximum stack height for the shoe.

There is also increasing evidence that some runners are much more responsive to the benefits of the shoes than others, which is completely unfair. That, to me, is a bigger problem.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

I was discussing the shoes/swimsuits thing with Florence last night. She made a great point that equipment like this becomes an access issue for the sport. If there's an expensive piece of gear that reduces your times by a significant percentage, then at e.g. junior level, those from low-income families become essentially priced out of the sport.

[Gavin Chipper]

That's definitely true and they do have certain restrictions on running shoes but they could go further. They certainly could have earlier but these records exist now so maybe the cat's out of the bag.

[Ian Volante]

Yeah everyone should run bare-footed a-la Zola Budd

Well yes. Some people think that these new shoes are somehow "cheating", but unless you ban all shoes, then where do you draw the line? How good does a shoe need to be before it "artificially" aids your performance? I suppose the problem is not how good they are as a standalone, but that they are continually getting better, meaning that it's harder to compare times from previous years. There must be diminishing returns with these super shoes though, especially as there is a maximum stack height for the shoe.

I used to think that middle distance records were slightly tarnished by having a pacemaker.

Better than anyone keeling over mid-race.

[Ian Volante]

Swimming faced a similar problem: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-bo ... id=9437780

There's also the javelin redesigns that reduced the potential distance one could be thrown, although they reset the records at the same time.

This was at least partly a safety issue though if I remember right.

[Gavin Chipper]

That's definitely true and they do have certain restrictions on running shoes but they could go further. They certainly could have earlier but these records exist now so maybe the cat's out of the bag.

They could have a maximum retail price and only shoes available to the public.

[Gavin Chipper]

There is also increasing evidence that some runners are much more responsive to the benefits of the shoes than others, which is completely unfair. That, to me, is a bigger problem.

Where did you hear this? It seems a bit strange if true.

[Jon O'Neill]

There is also increasing evidence that some runners are much more responsive to the benefits of the shoes than others, which is completely unfair. That, to me, is a bigger problem.

Where did you hear this? It seems a bit strange if true.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5856879/

"Among the 18 subjects, the mean difference in energetic cost over the three velocities between the NP and NS shoes ranged from − 1.59 to − 6.26% and from − 1.97 to − 6.08% for NP versus AB, indicating considerable inter-individual variation in the amount of energetic saving the NP shoes provided."

[Gavin Chipper]

Interesting, thanks. But what if shoes in general (versus bare feet) benefited some runners more than others? Would that be a problem?

[Fiona T]

Everyone is different physically, and it seems inevitable that some clothing items will assist some athletes more than others.

Recent research showed that a properly fitting running bra increased performance. Now I'm only speculating, but I imagine that this would benefit a larger breasted athlete a lot more than a flat chested one.

Presumably the shoe differences are related to arches/toe length/foot width/length or other physical differences - not sure how that is different?

[Elliott Mellor]

Everyone is different physically, and it seems inevitable that some clothing items will assist some athletes more than others.

Recent research showed that a properly fitting running bra increased performance. Now I'm only speculating, but I imagine that this would benefit a larger breasted athlete a lot more than a flat chested one.

Presumably the shoe differences are related to arches/toe length/foot width/length or other physical differences - not sure how that is different?

This is my original impression, admittedly from the perspective of someone who isn't a runner. Any change to equipment in sport is going to benefit some people more than others, but that can invariably be traced back to differences in physique/technique.

[Callum Todd]

Not sure if we've had this discussion before and it's probably got a simple answer anywhere but the talk of what external advantages a competitive sportsperson can gain are fair and which aren't always makes me think of the doping debate.

High level competitive athletes do all sorts of things to give themselves an advantage, from using the best equipment to maximising their physical condition. As for so-called "performance enhancing drugs", the thing I've never understood is that at world level it's perfectly normally for athletes to be on all sorts of fancy dietary supplements to improve their condition. All athletes at that level routinely consume stuff to enhance their performance. What makes some of these things fair and others cheating. When does a supplement become a PED? Is an expensive fancy running shoe a Performance Enhancing Device?

[Elliott Mellor]

Not sure if we've had this discussion before and it's probably got a simple answer anywhere but the talk of what external advantages a competitive sportsperson can gain are fair and which aren't always makes me think of the doping debate.

High level competitive athletes do all sorts of things to give themselves an advantage, from using the best equipment to maximising their physical condition. As for so-called "performance enhancing drugs", the thing I've never understood is that at world level it's perfectly normally for athletes to be on all sorts of fancy dietary supplements to improve their condition. All athletes at that level routinely consume stuff to enhance their performance. What makes some of these things fair and others cheating. When does a supplement become a PED? Is an expensive fancy running shoe a Performance Enhancing Device?

I get the sense that, with all the modern technology available, the "banned" and "acceptable" lists are a bit arbitrary. Banning certain substances only really levels the playing field until enough players find ways around the rules, and newer dietary supplements and equipment become available that enhance performance at least as much as any PED would. You could say it's analogous to how F1 has (according to those I know that follow it) become way more about the car that a driver is in, than the driver themselves.

[Gavin Chipper]

Everyone is different physically, and it seems inevitable that some clothing items will assist some athletes more than others.

Recent research showed that a properly fitting running bra increased performance. Now I'm only speculating, but I imagine that this would benefit a larger breasted athlete a lot more than a flat chested one.

Presumably the shoe differences are related to arches/toe length/foot width/length or other physical differences - not sure how that is different?

I think with a bra, it's more that you're preventing a hindrance that is only indirectly related to running. With a shoe, you are directly enhancing your running performance. Obviously it could be argued that it's just levelling the playing field for someone with crappy arches or something like that, but I still think it's much nearer the questionable boundary than a sports bra.

Not sure if we've had this discussion before and it's probably got a simple answer anywhere but the talk of what external advantages a competitive sportsperson can gain are fair and which aren't always makes me think of the doping debate.

High level competitive athletes do all sorts of things to give themselves an advantage, from using the best equipment to maximising their physical condition. As for so-called "performance enhancing drugs", the thing I've never understood is that at world level it's perfectly normally for athletes to be on all sorts of fancy dietary supplements to improve their condition. All athletes at that level routinely consume stuff to enhance their performance. What makes some of these things fair and others cheating. When does a supplement become a PED? Is an expensive fancy running shoe a Performance Enhancing Device?

It probably is to a large extent arbitrary. But there are certain things that they probably consider. Some of these supplements likely just contain things that people get in their diet anyway to make sure they're not deficient. And it would be strange to ban the form you take them in, not to mention the policeability of it.

Also, it's likely to be about accessibility and safety. If some performance enhancing substance is only available to a select few, then maybe they're more likely to ban it. If it's dangerous, then they're presumably very likely to ban it.

[Jon O'Neill]

Everyone is different physically, and it seems inevitable that some clothing items will assist some athletes more than others.

Recent research showed that a properly fitting running bra increased performance. Now I'm only speculating, but I imagine that this would benefit a larger breasted athlete a lot more than a flat chested one.

Presumably the shoe differences are related to arches/toe length/foot width/length or other physical differences - not sure how that is different?

This is my original impression, admittedly from the perspective of someone who isn't a runner. Any change to equipment in sport is going to benefit some people more than others, but that can invariably be traced back to differences in physique/technique.

It will be predominantly technique rather than physique that governs the difference I expect.

Of course some people will always benefit more than others. But the variances in that study are huge. I highly doubt that there is a comparable technological change in any other sport which so drastically unlevels the playing field.

[Gavin Chipper]

It will be predominantly technique rather than physique that governs the difference I expect.

Of course some people will always benefit more than others. But the variances in that study are huge. I highly doubt that there is a comparable technological change in any other sport which so drastically unlevels the playing field.

Does it unlevel the playing field or just change it? I would intuitively say that the people who would benefit most from super shoes are those who have poorer technique when it comes to landing and then taking off again. The shoes take out some of the relevance of that because the foot is hidden above a high stacked shoe sole that handles the energy return itself. I'd be surprised if those who have the most efficient technique already are the ones gaining from it.

So by removing this aspect of technique it is more likely to level the playing field rather than unlevel it. You might still argue that this is a bad thing of course, because technique is a relevant skill.

One other thing though - the paper does suggest that heel strikers benefit more than mid/forefoot strikers despite being equally efficient beforehand, by about 1%, so that is an unlevelling. But that's not the big differences that you were talking about.

Also, that study was funded by Nike and while that doesn't mean it wasn't done objectively, marathon times have not improved by the levels predicted by the study in the intervening years. The men's world record was 2:02:57 at the time of the study in non-super shoes, and they predicted a 3.4% time reduction (based on a 4% increase in efficiency). This would give a time of 1:58:46. Eliud Kipchoge's current official record is 2:01:09, although he did set a time of 1:59:41 in an unofficial time trial with continuous pacing and drafting from a car (still some way off). Also, you would expect Eliud Kipchoge's record to be a better run than Dennis Kimetto's, as Kipchoge has been the dominant marathon runner for years and is seen by many as the GOAT (until Kelvin Kiptum blows his times away but most people haven't heard of him yet), whereas Kimetto hasn't achieved anywhere near as much in terms of results. Plus shoes have improved since that study so that 3.4% time improvement should be even greater by now.

If you knock 3.4% off Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25, you get 2:10:49, and even the ridiculously quick new record of 2:11:53 hasn't troubled that.

This is all a bit of an aside really and doesn't exactly go against the idea that some people benefit more from the shoes than others, but it does suggest that the absolute gains aren't as great as the study suggests, so we're dealing with smaller margins, and it does call into question some of the accuracy.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

(until Kelvin Kiptum blows his times away but most people haven't heard of him yet)

He might gain some notoriety now.

[Gavin Chipper]

(until Kelvin Kiptum blows his times away but most people haven't heard of him yet)

He might gain some notoriety now.

Yes, I was going to post about this. New world record!

[Marc Meakin]

(until Kelvin Kiptum blows his times away but most people haven't heard of him yet)

He might gain some notoriety now.

Yes, I was going to post about this. New world record!

The 2 hour barrier is within reach

[Marc Meakin]

The split times for that marathon, every kilometer under 3 minutes

[Gavin Chipper]

With all the world records, maybe we'll have to resurrect this thread soon.

[Jon O'Neill]

With all the world records, maybe we'll have to resurrect this thread soon.

I wonder what could be causing all these records to tumble all of a sudden...

[Gavin Chipper]

With all the world records, maybe we'll have to resurrect this thread soon.

I wonder what could be causing all these records to tumble all of a sudden...

Better shoes and and better drugs!

Edit - Shoe technology has helped more on the road than the track because the maximum allowed stack height for the shoe is higher for road racing so there's more potential for gains there. But some of the women's track times recently have raised a few eyebrows. Also some don't find Kelvin Kiptum at all believable.

[Jon O'Neill]

We know that the shoes can account for all of the improvement so you don't need to assume that drugs are better as well.

[Gavin Chipper]

Maybe not better drugs but on the track more flagrant drug taking is at least a possibilty.

[Jon O'Neill]

Maybe not better drugs but on the track more flagrant drug taking is at least a possibilty.

But there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that. It'd be a bit like accusing all the 2008 swimmers of taking drugs as well as having the new swimsuits. You might well be right but what would lead you to speculate?

Also some don't find Kelvin Kiptum at all believable.

Why?

[Gavin Chipper]

On the track I'm not sure times have overall massively improved on average. It seems that the fastest have just widened the gap - in some events anyway.

Here's one discussion thread on Kiptum. A lot of nonsense gets posted on that forum but a couple of things are that he came out of nowhere to be this top marathoner at a young age with no prior track career to speak of, which is quite rare. And the way he runs the races - going off "slowly" and then just destroying the second half of the race with seemingly no fatigue.

[Jon O'Neill]

On the track I'm not sure times have overall massively improved on average. It seems that the fastest have just widened the gap - in some events anyway.

I'd be surprised if that was the case. I'm sure the data to test this is available.

[Gavin Chipper]

OK, one could do a full statistical analysis, but I've definitely noticed that women's track times have come down more than men's (whatever the reason might be for that). For some reason the 400m hurdles has had massive gains for both men and women, but other than that I'd say women have had bigger improvements.

Flo-Jo spoils the sprints, but if you take her out, both the 100m and 200m have shifted quite significantly over the last couple of years, with multiple times inside the previous non Flo-Jo record in both events (two runners in the 100 (and a further two 0.01s behind) and three in the 200). The men's 100m has been comparatively weak. Noah Lyles has moved up the 3rd in history in the 200m but there's not the same depth there.

There have been fairly big gains in the women's 1500m, mile, 5000m and 10,000m as well. The 5000m stands out most with the top six times (four runners) from 2020 onwards.

By contrast, Joshua Cheptegei is the only runner who has beaten the men's 5000m and 10,000m records (both in 2020), and the 1500m and mile remain unbeaten from the late 90s.

I'm only speculating and I haven't done any statistical tests, but assuming this is a thing, it seems more realistic to me that drugs would have a big sex effect than shoes.

Even in the marathon with everyone going on about Kipchoge and Kiptum, they've taken far less off the record than the women have (about 2.5 minutes to 3.5 when compared to the old records of Kimetto/Radcliffe).

[Marc Meakin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/67164888
Interesting read about coaching

[Graeme Cole]

Joasia Zakrzewski banned for 12 months for using car in race

Stories like this are always hilarious, but what makes this especially noteworthy is she still only came third. Presumably this was to the great amusement of the two who finished ahead of her, who now brag about having beaten every other competitor including the one in a car.

[Gavin Chipper]

If the race was long enough you could make up the 12-month time deficit if you drove quickly.

[Marc Meakin]

This is incredible
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/67974629

[Gavin Chipper]

This is incredible
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/67974629

Yes, and it also goes back to what I said quite recently about women's times improving more than men's. Two women under the world record, and the men's race gave no times of particular note.

But also Agnes Ngetich and Emmaculate Anyango aren't exactly the biggest names to begin with. Ngetich (the winner) had at least got a bronze at the world cross country championships and had at least run a 29:24 10km before this crazy 28:46. Emmaculate Anyango (second), however, had done little of note, with a best 10km time of 30:01 before this 28:57. I'm not sure what to make of these performances.

It's also worth noting that road records are generally slower than track records, but the track 10,000m record is a mere 29:01.03 so it's been destroyed. The shoe rules are different for road racing and the recent development of "super shoes" has shifted the balance in favour of road racing, so this might be the trend from now on. We also had a massive chunk taken off the women's marathon record not so long ago, but the men's improvements seem more incremental.

[Marc Meakin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/68248821

I would to see athletes try this

[Gavin Chipper]

Kelvin Kiptum has died in a road accident. Shit. I mean, fucking hell.

[Thomas Carey]

Kelvin Kiptum has died in a road accident. Shit. I mean, fucking hell.

These are the kinds of celebrity deaths that get me the most. I struggle to really care when someone old dies, but he had so much ahead of him

also, not the thread for it, but fuck cars

[Gavin Chipper]

According to this Wikipedia page, people in Kenya are about 10 times as likely as people in the UK to die in a car accident in a given year. But fewer people have cars in Kenya. Per car, the death rate is more than 100 times as much!

From here:

Giving details of the crash, police said Kiptum was driving and had "lost control [of the vehicle] and veered off-road entering into a ditch on his left side".

"He drove in the ditch for about 60 metres before hitting a big tree," a police statement said.

That's really bizarre.

It's still a pretty freak event that Kiptum died just five days after his world record was ratified, and with the Paris Olympics coming up. Someone in the Kipchoge camp really wants that gold medal...

[Adam Gillard]

Kelvin Kiptum has died in a road accident. Shit. I mean, fucking hell.

These are the kinds of celebrity deaths that get me the most. I struggle to really care when someone old dies, but he had so much ahead of him

Horrible and shocking. Similar happened with Sammy Wanjiru in his prime.

[Ian Volante]

Steve Prefontaine similar.

[Gavin Chipper]

The thing is Kiptum was the sub-2 hour hope. He was also fun to watch. He'd take the first half of his marathons fairly easily and then just go in the second half. With better pacing, sub-2 looked a formality.

Also, for whatever reason, the women's marathon records are often set by people you've never heard of and will never hear of again. Someone might one day break 2:10 but we don't know who. For the men's sub-2 it had to be Kiptum. It was going to be Kiptum. And then this happened.

[Marc Meakin]

The thing is Kiptum was the sub-2 hour hope. He was also fun to watch. He'd take the first half of his marathons fairly easily and then just go in the second half. With better pacing, sub-2 looked a formality.

Also, for whatever reason, the women's marathon records are often set by people you've never heard of and will never hear of again. Someone might one day break 2:10 but we don't know who. For the men's sub-2 it had to be Kiptum. It was going to be Kiptum. And then this happened.

I reckon if the enhanced games happen then sub 2 hours will happen

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

I reckon if the enhanced games happen then sub 2 hours will happen

If you're happy to count that then why not count Kipchoge's sub-2?

[Marc Meakin]

I reckon if the enhanced games happen then sub 2 hours will happen

If you're happy to count that then why not count Kipchoge's sub-2?

Why wasn't it official then?

[Ian Volante]

I reckon if the enhanced games happen then sub 2 hours will happen

If you're happy to count that then why not count Kipchoge's sub-2?

Why wasn't it official then?

He had pacemakers, and if I remember right, was shielded from air resistance by a vehicle in front of him too, not to mention shoes that were beyond regulations.

[Marc Meakin]

If you're happy to count that then why not count Kipchoge's sub-2?

Why wasn't it official then?

He had pacemakers, and if I remember right, was shielded from air resistance by a vehicle in front of him too, not to mention shoes that were beyond regulations.

Pacemakers should be OK though as most middle distance record breakers have had them

[Gavin Chipper]

The pacemakers dropped in and out (there were several laps) so it wasn't like in a proper race where they start with you and then drop out when they can't keep it going.

[Thomas Carey]

The pacemakers dropped in and out (there were several laps) so it wasn't like in a proper race where they start with you and then drop out when they can't keep it going.

I still don't really get why that's illegal. Obviously cars blocking wind and shoes with whatever made them illegal would invalidate the run anyway, but i don't see why you couldn't essentially tell the guy exactly how fast to run (with pacers or a hologram 'ghost car' or whatever else)? He's still running it himself...

[Gavin Chipper]

Yeah it's not a massive big deal, though still not legal.

[Gavin Chipper]

Also the shoes Kipchoge wore were I believe the Alphaflys, which are a legal shoe. At the time they were a prototype, so perhaps technically illegal due to not being available to the public or something.