Sports news: Athletics and Paralympics

Post-Olympic sports news as the Paralympics takes centre stage

Apologies for the break, it's been a busy time at work and the world of sport has taken a backseat, unfortunately. Only in our pages, because it's actually been a very busy time in the world of sport.

Athletics - Golden delight and heartache in the fallout from Beijing

The world's best athletes headed straight out of Beijing and into the final month of the international track season, with two Golden League meetings in Zurich and Brussels. It was more gold for Pamela Jelimo of Kenya, the 19-year old (officially, most people in Africa suspect that's not entirely accurate, but anyway) phenom who has won every 800m race of the year by about 20m.

She did the same in Zurich and in Brussels, running an incredible time of 1:54.01, the third fastest in history. A "slower" 1:55.16 was enough to secure her six out of six in the Golden League series. She is probably, along with Yelena Isinbayeva, the most dominant female athlete in the world today, and it's difficult to believe that this time last year, there was not even a hint that she was on the horizon. There can be few more spectacular debut seasons, especially in a middle distance event for women - the record books, if you look at them, are dominated by Eastern European performances from the 1980's, and Jelimo has record keepers scrambling to update them. It's spectacular, and it earned Jelimo her share of the $1 million jackpot.

It turned out to be a pretty big share - all of it. Blanka Vlasic, Croatia's high jump champion, has seen her superb season fall away badly since the Olympic Games. She was surprised in Beijing by Tia Hellebaut of Belgium, despite clearing 2.05m, and in Brussels, she lacked any edge at all, going out at 2.01m, and losing (on countback, again) to Germany's Arianne Friedrich. The $500,000 she would have won would have gone some way to softening the blow of the Olympic silver, because she had been one of the red hot favourites for Beijing Gold. However, she'll now end the season with not one, but two near misses, both on countback, but such are the margins for error in pro sports.

The Paralympic Games in Beijing

Speaking of professional sports, the Paralympics continues to grow, and certainly here in South Africa, it has received more media exposure than has previously been the case, which is excellent. It's not yet up to the level of the Olympic Games, but it's growing. 4000 athletes in Beijing, up from Athens, and Sydney. It's still "immature" in the sense that it's not accessible to the whole world's population - the "gene pool" in the Games is narrow and so you're not seeing the best naturally talented athletes just yet - no Caribbean athletes in the top 8 of the sprint events, for example. No Ethiopians in the distance events, very few Kenyans, etc. That's an "access" problem. But it will change, and the technology balance and equal opportunities for all disabled athletes is something that will hopefully develop out of this Paralympic growth.

Apart from the increased media exposure, another sign of the growth is that the Paralympics are now producing more frequent positive drug tests. That's an indication that the "Olympic spirit", traditionally defined as courage, determination, inspiration and equality, are now giving way to "higher, faster, stronger...at all costs", and winning is starting to becoming the only thing. That's a shame, but perhaps is an inevitable consequence of the heightened exposure and importance of the Games. The Paralympics remain closer to the true vision of the Games than the able-bodied Games do, but that won't last long - more media means more prestige, which means more sponsorship, and more money, and that invites people to do whatever is necessary to win. One thing it will do is raise the depth of competition, which is a good thing - one of the 200m swimming events was won by 11 seconds. A track final had only four competitors. In time, those margins will narrow, which is good for the growth of the Games.

South Africa will have a good Paralympic Games, far better than the able-bodied Games. The media will compare them, which is unfair for the reasons described above, but all will be forgotten and SA will move onto its next disaster Olympics as a result. On a positive note, South Africa does boast Natalie du Toit, who is the "Phelps" of the Paralympic Games - she'll try to win 5 medals, possibly all gold, and it may have been 6 if the SA administrators hadn't bungled an entry for the sixth event (seriously...). She's a superstar of either Games, having competed in the 10km event at last month's Olympic Games as well.

As for Oscar Pistorius, he's back in the Paralympics which he insists is not a "consolation prize" (his words) after failing to reach the Olympic Games. It's contradictory to the messages of six months ago, where he said he wanted to run in the Olympics to have a "decent level of competition" (his words again). Readers of this site will know my opinion on this one, but for someone else's (which also captures a big part of the problem), this is the best article written on it so far: Pistorius article - Daily Telegraph

For the rest, the media has continued to spew forth garbage about it - "the only one with a double amputation", they say, not recognizing that this is in fact the reason he should NOT be running against single leg amputees - that's a point we made, along with Marlon Shirley (who fell in the 100m final yesterday) and a number of other people during the debate. I've no issue with him competing in the Paralympics (obviously), but he's denying single leg amputees gold medals when he really should be in a separate category. You watch that 100m race and tell me it's possible for one guy to be that much faster over the last 50m than everyone else. Not even Usain Bolt had that kind of advantage...

The Paralympics continues into next week, and should throw up some incredible inspirational stories. Do yourself a favour and watch, and you'll be amazed at how some athletes overcome their disadvantages - a Chinese swimmer, double-leg amputee, and with only one arm, winning the backstroke, for example. But let's hope the Games don't head the same way as the Olympics, where the guy with the most money or least scruples can win - in some respects, it's already happened!

Join us later for a look at some comebacks and "bounce-backs" from the world of sport over the last two weeks...did someone say Lance Armstrong...?

Ross

The Olympic Games Medals analysis

302 golds: The Olympic Medal table analysis

302 gold medals were handed out in Beijing. Add to that 303 silvers, and 353 bronze medals, and you get a total of 958 medals won during the 16-days of Olympic competition.

When you consider that 10,500 athletes were in Beijing, then it's actually quite interesting to calculate that on average, one in 11 athletes leaves the Games with a medal!

Of course, that's not necessarily true, for two reasons. The first is that there are many multiple medal winners, like Michael Phelps, who won 8 all by himself. I guess one might say that his achievements account for 77 people who suddenly fall out of the calculation pool! On the other hand, team medals are counted as one, even though 20 athletes might win one. So, a German hockey team consisting of 20 guys each has a medal, but it's reflected as a single medal, which might eventually cancel out the multiple-medal winners like Phelps, Bolt and co. So it's interesting to note just how many medals there are on offer, once you make it to the Games, of course!

Today's post is a look at where those medals went (not to individuals, but to nations), and to figure out just who the real Olympic champions are. China topped the medal table, by virtue of its 51 golds. That's 17% of the gold medals on offer. But then China has 20% of the world's population, so what does it mean? The USA top the charts in terms of TOTAL medals won (110 compared to China's 100). But they are also the wealthiest nation, so should that be expected? And how do we evaluate Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia - smaller countries, with limited resources, who stole the show in Beijing in specific areas? That's what this post is all about.

The Gold-rush: China's remarkable rise

As mentioned, China was always going to be a superpower once it invested in sport. With a population of 1.3 billion to choose from, finding 100 medallists would not seem a mission impossible. But making it happen is no mean feat. For one thing, not all those 1.3 billion are in the "selection pool", and massive talent ID is required to tease out those athletes, train them and prepare them for competition. And this is what China has done so well. An investigating into China's sporting system in 1994 revealed that they have 4000 Coaches at the elite level! In a sport like rowing, for example, they have 1,200 full-time rowers, divided into squads of 60 to 70. That's an amazing system, at a huge cost of course, but it's partly responsible for producing the success they achieved.

But there's something more to China's success - it is not simply a numbers game. Take a look at the following table showing China's medal hauls at the last 3 Games:

Two things jump out:

First of all, China's ascent to the top of the charts has been achieved entirely by winning more GOLD medals. Their silver and bronze medal haul has remained unchanged since 2000. But they've almost doubled the number of golds.

Second, when you sum up the last 3 Games, China wins more golds than it does silvers and bronzes COMBINED! That's quite extra-ordinary, given the number of medals won. In terms of pure statistics, you'd expect some kind of "normal" distribution of golds-silvers and bronzes. The table and graph below shows the USA and Australia's returns, compared to the Chinese:


So it's quite clear that the Chinese have figured out how to get straight to the top, win the Gold, and not win any silvers or bronzes! Of course, home-ground advantage might be a factor, because an athlete in contention may find that extra 2% that pushes them from second or third into first.

But I suspect there's more to it than this. It's still a vague idea in my own mind, but I think this is an indication of massive investment into specific events. There is no half-measure, no stone unturned. The Chinese identify their potential medal winner and invest so heavily in that person or team that they become a clear favourite. That kind of targeted approach produces people with clear gold medal chances, and is testament to massive investment in individuals. Second or third are not options, given the preparation that must go into creating a vastly superior athlete. That's the only reason I can think of - the target is set, to win gold, and then they hit it. Pretty simple in principle, obviously very difficult in practice.

The underdogs: The small nations have their say

One of the more interesting means to analyse Olympic success is to convert the medals into a population per medal value. That is, compare the medals won PER PERSON, rather than an absolute number. This gives the "minnows" a chance to shine, because it's quite clear that unless something is very wrong, a nation of 200 million SHOULD win more medals than a nation of 200,000! So let's have a look at medals won as a function of the nation's population (note: the population figures are up for debate, I suppose, but this is not a census, it's just to make a point, so they're accurate enough!)


The Bahamas, then, are the undisputed champions of population per medal. They regularly win 2 medals per Games, and with a tiny population, have a remarkable ratio. The USA and China suddenly fall off the top perch, and win only 1 medal per 2.7 million people or 13 million people, respectively. That places them outside the top 40 on the population adjusted table. South Africa, meanwhile, fare poorly in Beijing, thanks to the lonely silver we won. Previous Games were much better, and it's understandable why fans are so disappointed.

Australia are the best of the "big" nations. It can be a little misleading doing this analysis, because the relationship between medals and size is not necessarily a straight line. So the Aussies, thanks to their intelligent investment in sport, make the most of what they have and do incredibly well given their relatively small size.

Just a note on this table - strictly speaking, one should try to "weight" the medals by awarding three points to gold, two to silver and one to bronze, and then work out a score. If you do this, then Jamaica come out on top, ahead of the Bahamas, courtesy their sprint domination and 6 gold medals in Beijing.

The source of big returns for small numbers?

So, to generalize slightly, the Caribbean islands tend to dominate this list. They are small, and yet regularly win a handful of medals, mostly in the sprint events (in Beijing, both the Bahamas and Jamaica won all their events in athletics). That is testament to the genetic potential of the atheltes in those countries. That's a debate that was had in the comments section of one our recent posts, and it's worth discussing again in the future - the genes for speed.

But for today, we'll stick to management-related issues. I believe the key to making the most of this genetic potential (which I'll assume exists, though I appreciate that it's not clear-cut) is to facilitate competition with a focus on specific sports. Your emails have informed us that the school athletics system in the Caribbean islands is enormously strong, and this is the big driver of these medals.

Add to this a culture of the sport (which is why the school system is so strong), plus the existence of "aspirational heroes and role models", and you have a mix that will ensure that talent comes through, despite relatively small investment and a small population. If anything, the smaller population helps the athlete come through. Lastly, the focus is not too broad - there is no swimming team, no fencing, no table-tennis to detract from limited resources. The eggs are placed in the basket that will produce results, and that means a much simpler system to run.

There is of course much more to it than this, but the post is running away with me now! So to spare some of your reading time, I'll cut the discussion on the "minnows" short, and also say that we'll pick up the Olympic Medal Analysis in a second post tomorrow. There, we'll discuss medals won per dollar GDP, and figure out which countries get the best returns given their financial resources. We'll also dissect the big failures (South Africa, mostly, since I'm here and biased that way!)

Join us then!
Ross

Olympic Oscars Part 2

Olympic Oscars Part 2: The less serious awards

Yesterday we did the first our Olympic recap "awards" post, which we continue today, in our look back on the Games and some of the stories we might not have covered during the actual Games.

The distance award

Since we have a preference for the distance events, we can’t let this go without giving special mention to the best of the distance events. Beijing ended up being one of the greatest Games ever for distance running. It produced two 5000m-10000m doubles, with three of those four golds won in Olympic Record time.

We also had an Olympic record in the Marathon, and the emergence of Kenya’s women in the middle-distance races. They won the 800m and 1500m titles, and the 800m champion, Jelimo, is probably the most dominant athletes in the world today, yet is still a little under-rated, in my opinion. Last week, in the first meeting post-Beijing, she ran the third fastest time in history in winning Zurich in 1:54.01, and Kratochvilova's world record, almost without doubt a doped record, seems under threat. For that reason, Jelimo will also not escape some cynicism over her own performance, particularly given her age. Nevertheless, the margins of victory in her races is quite astounding, and she is the most dominant female athlete around today.

But the BEST distance athlete of the Games, in our opinion, goes to Tirunesh Dibaba, for her double. The 5000m-10000m double was only introduced in 1996, so it’s not surprising that hers is the first of its kind. But her 10,000m win, in the second fast time in history (and perhaps fastest legal time, given what we all suspect of the Chinese of 1993), followed by a spectacular 5000 m (where the final 1500m was covered in the same time as the 1500m final) give her the nod. But really, it could just as easily have gone to Bekele. Or Sammy Wanjiru, who gave Kenya its first gold in the marathon, with a front running performance in the heat that defied physiological belief.

Biggest “no-show” of the Games

Which athlete threatened greatness and didn’t show up? Well, perhaps the biggest “no-show” was the impact of the pollution on the distance athletes. It was one of the big talking points leading up to Beijing, and no one knew what impact it would have on performances. Many experts had predicted disaster, but in the end, we got 4 Olympic records in 6 distance races, and no athletes were noticeably incapacitated by the famous Beijing smog. Of course, it may have had some impact, time will allow those stories to emerge, but watching the Africans dominate on the track, you got the feeling the body is far more impressive than most give it credit for!

In terms of athletes, difficult to say. We obviously focus only on swimming, cycling and athletics, so our picks come from there. Katie Hoff was expected to be the Michael Phelps in the female division, but she was heavily overshadowed by Stephanie Rice and Kirsty Coventry. So she’s a candidate, and perhaps the US trials were a little too close to the Games to allow their swimmers to hold their form or regain that peak. Hoff did, after all, set world records in the US Trials in June, but wasn’t the same in Beijing. The same could be said of many of the US swimmers, with the noticeable exception of Phelps. They still dominated the swimming medal table, of course, so perhaps this is overly critical...

On the track, Sanya Richards has dominated the women's 400m event for years, apart from at major championships, and she’ll have to try again for her first major title. And then Asafa Powell came, saw, and ran a final that was slower than his semi-final…again. It’s the second major Games where he’s looked good in the semi-final, and then tied up in the final. Not that he would have won gold, but he certainly should have won a medal. He got consolation by anchoring the Jamaicans to the world record.

And then the final one, perhaps the biggest, was pointed out by Erik in the comments below (I forgot about him because I'd commented on the event in yesterday's post), was Liu Xiang. That was maybe the biggest disappointment of the games - we were denied the race between Xiang and Robles (who was discussed yesterday). But Liu was the pin-up boy for the Games, the face of Beijing 2008 since 2001 when the Games were awarded. In the end, he didn't even clear a hurdle...

The Four-years of redemption award

This one goes to Blanka Vlasic, who has been unbeatable in the high jump since about 2 years ago. Yet in Beijing, she was suddenly matched and then beaten by Tia Hellebaut, who has shown nothing of that kind of form all year. Vlasic might be considered a little unlucky – it’s not as though she under-performed. After all, she cleared 2.05m, which is pretty much her norm for the year, but she was unable to raise it higher on the day, and lost on count-back. People have suggested that she was over-jumped, and had competed too much leading into the Games. This may be true, but again, she didn’t come to Beijing and jump anything less than what she typically does. She did, however, fail to jump a season’s best and as any athlete knows, you have to be in the shape to jump your best when it counts on the day, and she couldn’t do it. She’s young enough that in four years, she’ll have another shot at it.

Also in this category is LoLo Jones, who had gold in her sights, within her grasp even, but hit hurdle 9 to do a “Gail Devers” and lose out. She’s since bounced back, and seems quite upbeat about it. But the images of her coming to terms with that result were among the most dramatic of the Games. She’ll also have a chance in four years’ time, health-willing, to set the Olympic record straight.

Biggest surprise of the Games

You'd have been hard pressed to pick that Constantina Dita would win the women's marathon. We're showing our distance bias again, but watching the women's marathon, I had this "expectation" that any momen, one of Ndereba or Chunxiu would take the initiative and chase the Romanian down, and that surely she wouldn't stay out in front for a full 22 km. Yet she survived, and the chasing two settled for silver, in what was perhaps the biggest surprise.

Not that there were others - someone posted yesterday on Rebecca Adlington's triumph in the women's 400m freestyle event, which she followed up with a world record victory in the 800m freestyle. That was an unexpected medal.

Maybe the biggest surprise of all, which we touched on in yesterday's post, was the USA's failure to win a single gold in the short sprints and relays. They were completely outrun by Jamaica, with the Russian women providing the only "variety" by winning the relay. The USA sprint dominance was well and truly broken, and many suggested it's because the stricter anti-doping controls have slowed them down. I don't think that is the case - the truth is everyone else got faster. They were, after all, beaten by two world records, one Olympic record, and two performances that were the fastest in ten years (and of course, two dropped batons). So that's not a weakening, it's just that they've been outrun, and it will be interesting to see whether they return to form in the next few years.

Next up as we look back, a discussion of the medal table!

Until then!
Ross

Olympic Oscars

Looking back on the Games - "Olympic Oscars". The winner is....

It’s been one week since the Olympics, and a slow week here at The Science of Sport (as I try to catch up on time lost to the Games, mostly!). For today, though, to begin a Post-Olympic wrap, I thought I’d do a “Best of” (and worst of) list from Beijing. So here are the “Olympic Oscars”.

Best athlete

It’s a straight shoot-out between Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt on this one. Phelps was always going to be the biggest story of the Games, because even an “average” performance was going to see him surpass the record for most gold medals in history (which was 11 going in – Phelps was already on 6). As it turned out, he delivered on ALL the expectation, and won eight out of eight events, for an unprecedented medal haul in a single Olympic Games. By the time he’d won his fifth gold, he was already equal at the top of all-time gold medalists. He then added a further three, and with London to come (and who knows, maybe 2016?), he could well finish his career with twice as many golds as the next best person!

So, when we one day look back at the Greatest Olympians ever, Phelps is sure to be a name on everyone’s list. However, for Beijing, we’ll give the “Best athlete” prize to Usain Bolt. It reveals our bias slightly (we’re running fans more than swimming fans), but Bolt gets the nod ahead of Phelps because his performance was less expected, I dare say more spectacular, yet just as unprecedented. No one in history had ever won the 100m and 200m titles in world records. Bolt did both, and then capped it off with a third world record in the 4 x 100m relay. It was a Jesse-Owens like performance, and the manner of victory was what made it so spectacular. A demolition job in the 100m, featuring a celebration DURING the race and still a world record, and then breaking Michael Johnson’s legendary 200m world record, were probably two of the five highlights of the Games. Michael Phelps also broke world records – four individual and three team records, but given that swimming records fall just about as frequently as night follows day, I don’t think it’s quite as meaningful (more on swimming in future posts.).

Bolt still has a way to go to add “longevity” to his CV, and he will look to London 2012 and a repeat of the double to do that – if he succeeds then he’ll surely be recognized universally as the greatest sprinter ever. For now, he has the greatest sprint Olympics ever seen behind him. He energized the second week of the Games, and gets our nod as the “Athlete of the Games”.

Best team

I guess the “nominees” in this category are Jamaica, China, the USA and Kenya, each of which has some claim to call Beijing successful. Our pick is the Jamaicans, because for such a small island to have so comprehensively dominated a group of events is an amazing result. When we do our analysis of the medal table, you'll see that they top the charts in terms of success per PERSON.

They also get the prize because their success inspired one of our most controversial and widely discussed posts yet, when we tried to discuss Usain Bolt’s meteoric rise. In that post, we said how astonishing it was for Jamaica to have swept the four short sprints, including a clean sweep of the medals in the women’s 100m, and asked the inevitable question re doping. Had they not dropped the baton in the women’s 4 x 100m relay, they may well have won every sprint title. Add to that a women’s 400m hurdles title and it’s a never-seen-before dominance of the sprint events. Their success denied the USA a sprint title of any kind for the first time in the Olympic Games.

In response to our post, in which I wrote that their success will automatically raise questions regarding doping, we received some indignant, very offended emails from people who accused us of all kinds of ill-intentions. It’s still amusing to me to read the tone of those comments, because people get so indignant and are completely incapable of appreciating that at the very least, a discussion of doping is inevitable in a sport where success without doping is about as rare as South African medals at the Games! The most common argument in defence of Jamaica is that they have always produced great sprinters, and a few people accused me of lacking knowledge or appreciation of the history of sprinting (one even asked whether I’d ever heard of Merlene Ottey).

I must just make the point that while it is true that Jamaica has a rich heritage of great sprinters, what we have witnessed in Beijing is unprecedented, and not part of a normal sequence of historically good performances. Three world records, the fastest time in the last 10 years in the women’s 200m (since Marion Jones, that is), and an Olympic record in the 400m Hurdles. That’s not just part of a “long history”, that’s an explosion in performance! The celebration in Jamaica is testament to that very fact – Beijing 2008 cannot simply be explained away as the result of anti-doping in the USA, it’s more than that. And the debate exists merely to understand where that success comes from. But it was a spectacular sprinting performance, the highlight of the Games, and for that Jamaica is probably the nation with the most to celebrate post-Beijing.

Special mention to China, who we’ll discuss a lot more in our upcoming analysis of the medal table. I think it’s easy to dismiss China’s achievements as the inevitable consequence of having the world’s largest population to choose from. But when you look a little more closely at it, you realize that in fact, they succeeded because they invested very intelligently in their athletes. The medal tables from the last three Games makes for interesting reading, but we won’t give the game away here, but rather say to check in next week for the medal discussion!

Kenya also had their best ever Games, helped in large part by their women – the 800m and 1500m titles, as well as silver over 800m, marks the emergence of Kenyan women in middle distance events. Their men also won the 800m title, the Steeplechase (as always) and won their first marathon. It was, on the whole, an excellent Games for Kenya, and barring Bekele and Dibaba of Ethiopia, they will be satisfied with the health of the nation’s distance runners.

Most under-rated performance

There were so many magnificent performances in Beijing that it’s quite easy to see how some special results did not receive the focus they deserved. For one thing, we had two distance doubles on the track – Kenenisa Bekele and Tirunesh Dibaba won the 5000m-10000m double, but were somewhat under-appreciated (not by the distance community, however) thanks to Bolt’s brilliant running.

However, our award for the single performance that was perhaps least discussed is that of Dayron Robles in the hurdles. Robles won the race in 12.93, but looked so comfortable and “conservative” that it was really a procession. If there was a category for “Biggest let-down of the Games”, then this race would receive it, because Liu Xiang’s withdrawal due to injury robbed us of a potentially epic clash. However, unless Liu had been 100% healthy, he’d have been struggling along with the rest of the world in Robles’ wake. Robles would have seen LoLo Jones smash hurdle 9 the night before, and lose the gold medal – a stark reminder of how fickle hurdles can be. Perhaps he took a “conservative” line into the race, but he ran sub-13s looking almost complacent, and he’s the undisputed number 1 now.

Best race of the Games

The best race of the Games comes from the pool, where Michael Phelps almost had his quest for 8 derailed by a very unlikely source. It came in Phelps’ weakest event, the 100m butterfly, which is the only one of his events where he is not the world record holder. That title belongs to Ian Crocker, but it was not Crocker who almost spoiled this particular party. Rather, it was Milorad Cavic of Serbia, who broke the Olympic record in both his qualifying races and swam in lane 4 alongside Phelps.

I’m sure that most of you are aware of how the race developed – Cavic was well ahead at the turn, and seemed to be holding that lead coming into the final 20m. Phelps was closing very gradually, but Cavic really did look to have the race won with only 5 m to go. He led for 99.90m of the 100m race, but at the end, thanks to one final stroke that Phelps managed to squeeze in before the wall, he was able to touch, 1/100th of a second ahead of Cavic. In slow motion replays, it seems impossible that Phelps had done it. The Serbs protested, and conspiracy theories began – it was rigged, they said, as though “real-time” rigging of something was possible to that extent – the stadium timing system registered Phelps as touching first by 1/100th of a second within 3 seconds of the finish – if that was rigged, then technology really is incredible! Had it gone to a photo finish, with a lengthy process of deliberation, then I might have had time for such theories!

However, the electronic system didn’t lie – Cavic reached for the wall from about 2m out, and Phelps got one last stroke in, and the gold was his. It was number 7, and the medley relay completed the 8. But this was the race that nearly cost him his unique place at the head of the tree.

Honorable mention to another event involving Phelps, though he was not the star of the race – the men’s 4 x 100m Freestyle relay featured the USA vs France in a race for the world record. In the end, Jason Lezak produced the relay swim of the century to close down a 0.62 second gap on the world record holder, Alain Bernard of France, and give the USA the title. The top 6 teams all broke the world record from before Beijing, but the incredible final leg, where Lezak closed down a full body length on the world record holder (who would go on to become the Olympic champion) was extra-ordinary.

That’s it for this wrap-up. More to come in tomorrow’s post, with a few more “Olympic Awards” to give out!

Join us then!
Ross