Welcome to the Science of Sport, where we bring you the second, third, and fourth level of analysis you will not find anywhere else.

Be it doping in sport, hot topics like Caster Semenya or Oscar Pistorius, or the dehydration myth, we try to translate the science behind sports and sports performance.

Consider a donation if you like what you see here!

Did you know?
We published The Runner's Body in May 2009. With an average 4.4/5 stars on Amazon.com, it has been receiving positive reviews from runners and non-runners alike.

Available for the Kindle and also in the traditional paper back. It will make a great gift for the runners you know, and helps support our work here on The Science of Sport.

Monday, March 01, 2010

An Olympic musical - why every millisecond matters

The Winter Games draws to a close with an Olympic musical

Canada sits atop the Winter sporting world this morning, having claimed a record 14 gold medals in their home Olympic Games.  It's a record for any Games, beating the previous record of 13 held by Norway (Salt Lake City, 2002) and the Soviet Union (Innsbruck, 1976).

The 14th medal also probably felt like five for Canada, as their men's hockey team defeated the USA in overtime, exacting revenge for a 5-3 defeat earlier in the tournament.

The USA, for their part, will be content to have won the most medals at the Games, 37 in total, though "only" 9 were gold.  Much like Beijing, they were eclipsed for the top step on the podium, but depth of performances saw them gather a record number of medals.  After an excellent start, they were on track to top both the gold and total counts, but Canada won 10 medals in the last week of the Games, to storm to the top.  An amazing turn-around, considering that Canada had never won a gold medal on home soil until moguls skier Alexandre Bilodeau broke the drought.

Money in = medals out, and the value of being at home

The results once again highlight the value of home-ground advantage in the Olympic Games - few host nations have not excelled on the medal table - Spain, Australia, Italy, China, and even Greece come to mind as countries who have seen a spike in their medal tallies as hosts.  That says a lot about money invested - the relationship between money in and medals out is pretty well established in high performance sport, unless of course money is squandered in an inefficient or corrupt system (think Athletics South Africa where 80% of the money in goes towards unnecessary salaries, various perks and who knows what else...).  Hosting the Games means investing money in athlete preparation, a strategy used by China to win the most golds in Beijing in 2008. 

There is also the intangible benefit of competing at home, less easy to quantify or even explain, but it adds to that tiny 1% that an athlete needs to move from becoming part of the group to becoming its champion.  I posted the other day on the mental vs physiological edge, and I really do believe that the mental edge provided by being at home (assuming of course that the athlete doesn't collapse under the weight of expectation, when home ground advantage can have the opposite effect), contributes significantly to performance.  We have seen this in soccer - France in 1998, Korea & Japan in 2002, Germany in 2006 (whether South Africa can produce the same in 2010 remains to be seen...).

The Olympic musical - 4 years of training to be note on the timeline

Speaking of 1% differences, here is a website that is well worth a look - a fascinating piece from the New York Times looking at the margins between victory and defeat as "an Olympic musical" (thanks again to Joe for the link), where each sound effectively represents an athlete crossing the finish line after the winner.

We all recognize how tight the margins in sport are are.  No one who follows high performance sport will tell you that victory is ever achieved easily.  For example, if you play the musical for The Men's Super G skiing event (fourth from top), think for a second about the 7th note you hear.  It's basically indistinguishable from the third note, but that difference in sound is the difference between feeling that four years of training have produced something (a bronze medal) compared to a feeling of "if only".

Another fascinating event is the women's 1000m speedskating, won by Christine Nesbitt of Canada, in what was the closest finish of the Games (the same margin separated Germany and Japan in the women's pursuit race but that is not shown).  The 10th placed athlete was 0.87s behind, which is an enormous gap at that level, but the musical makes it easy to conceptualize how 'unforgiving' the sport can be.

It really strikes home when you think of it this way:  If that women's 1000m race were to be contested another 10 times,  there is a high probability that the same three women would win the medals again.  Perhaps the order would change slightly, they'd swap medals, but I'm pretty confident in saying that Christine Nesbitt would feature every time, probably win at least 50% of the races if they were re-run.

You would certainly feel that the chances of the 10th placed finisher jumping seven places to win a medal are very slim indeed.  Yet when you conceptualize it by listening to that musical time-line, the 10th note is over in the blink of an eye, yet that gap is too large to be overcome merely by more effort.  That athlete, a beep in a musical time line, is simply too far away to challenge for medal in their current condition, regardless of motivation.  And if that is true for her, then think of the woman who finished 4th, only 0.06s off the podium.

The only thing that will see that gap narrowed is a year, maybe two, maybe even four years of hard training or some other intervention that changes the athlete, either physiologically or psychologically - think altitude training, more power-based work at the gym, sports psychology, equipment etc.

Those are the margins which separate the medalists from those who have reached the pinnacle of the sport, yet they are so far.  I spoke the other day of the "so near yet so far syndrome" in elite sport, where you can at once be within touching distance, but the gap is almost insurmountable.  This illustrates it really nicely.

The other thing, as an aside which I have to take, is that it really highlights how doping messes up the natural order.  A drug doesn't have to transform an athlete's physiology to have a huge effect on the outcome - a 1% improvement is enough to make this musical completely different.  Laboratories usually can't find these margins of performance difference, and so when evidence is scarce that a drug has a beneficial effect, think of these Olympic musicals to understand why science doesn't necessarily have to prove anything.  They just work...

Sports Science and four years of effort 

It's really a remarkable illustration of what high performance sport is all about, and what we as scientists are all about.  Because if you are a sports scientist reading this, and you don't recognize that you are hunting that kind of performance improvement, then you're in the wrong industry!  The reason excellence, or even perfection in preparation matters, is because if you fail to aim for perfection, then you fall short and your athlete becomes a sound-byte, not the starting note!

I have some more thoughts on the Winter Olympics, despite my very limited exposure to them on SA TV, but I'll put those over for a day.



Anonymous said...

In your article you mentioned the home ground advantage. One big argument was missing: home referees. When I watched the final (ice hockey), I was stunned by the fact that the referees were from Canada. From my remote german perspective this is just weird.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi anonymous

Thanks for the comment - really good point. i didn't realise the referee was from Canada - that's quite amazing, actually. I saw that the short-track speed-skating also had a Canadian referee in the men's 500m which was won by a Canadian after a fall on the final bend - the American was disqualified and a Korean upgraded to silver. I know there was a lot of controversy about that decision as well.

So very odd indeed, and definitely a factor. Not that it's always the case, of course, but why take the chance when you could very easily have neutral referees? Doesn't make sense to me...


Sigmund1 said...

Another example of moneys power to produce medlas comes from Norways history. After Norway were awarded the Olympics in 1994, and the dismal results in Calgary in 88 a veritable tsunami of money was directed towards winter sports to ensure the nation would perform at home ground. From 0 gold medals in 88, 3 golds in 84, and 1 gold in 80 this yielded results already in Alberville with 9 golds, 10 golds in Lillehammer and so on.

It is also interesting to note that this deluge of medals coincides with the breakdown of the communist countries, and one can safely assume a drastic reduction in money for winter sports in those countries. Further strengthening the argument that maybe you can't buy love but you can certainly buy medlas in the olympics!

Adam Beston said...

There is something about ref's in a high position actually being more fair if they are officiating their home bc at that level it is a profession so a controversy could loose their job. At school levels the job is more supplemental so that incentive is not there. They are also less likely to be bribed. I don't remember where I read this stuff but it made sense. Also the countries with the best refs are gonna be the ones with the biggest programs and probably medal contenders.

Pre-calc 11 said...

The race I found incredible was the "other" event on the final day -- the Men's 50km Classic cross-country skiing race. The top-5 finishers were separated by 1.6 seconds in a race lasting over two hours! Can you imagine an Olympic marathon with five finishers crossing the line essentially at the same time?

Farid said...

In an attempt to defend the head referee (Bill McCreary) of the men's gold medal game, he is one of the most respected and senior officials in the NHL. He regularly officiates games involving Canadian hockey teams and with all the controversy surrounding rule changes in the NHL, I think he does one of the best jobs in integrating the new system (zero tolerance hawk-eye) over the old one (a snatch and grab, only-the-obvious-penalties-are-called style).
What's more, as an avid hockey fan from one of the most hallowed hockey cities in the world, I was yelling at him through my TV at missed calls as much as wiping my brow after he let Canada off the hook. The officials in the gold medal game essentially "let them play" and i think each side got their fair share of breaks.

As for a home advantage, I saw as many expected successes FAIL as I did see successes themselves (for Canada). I think one underestimates the pressure of a nation, especially since the majority of these sports have a small fan base in every other major event. (Think skeleton, speed skating, downhill skiing, luge, moguls, halfpipe, etc). These athletes, even when competing internationally, are footnotes in the world of north american sports. Then all of a sudden, for not even a few minutes, they're the focal point of over 20 million Canadians. THAT type of pressure, especially when it can involve a difference of hundreths of a second, is titanic at the least.

I do agree that money=medals... in the broadest of senses, we're all human beings, and therefore the country that can spend the most money will likey discover and fully cultivate the best of their stockpile. The best example is women's hockey. Canada has 60 000 girls in their hockey program at all ages, while the US is about the same. Slovakia on the other hand, is I believe at 267. Women's hockey at the Olympics has two purposes: 1) a gold medal game between Canada and probably the US, and a tournament where "first place" is the bronze medal.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Farid

Thank you for the very insightful comments!

To the other posters, thank you also for your thoughts! I obviously appreciate any insights I can get over and above the minimal coverage here in SA and the websites I've been able to read.

Regarding the referees, you make some good points, Farid, and I guess people will always point to officials as the cause of major controversy! We do it all the time in soccer, rugby, cricket, hockey, ice-hockey...name the sport and the ref is in the firing line!

And having not seen the game (even if I had, I wouldn't know enough about the game to make a call on the ref's performance) it may well have been that he officiated very well! However, given that so much is at stake, I'm still surprised that they don't choose neutral refs, because surely there are enough quality refs to select from? Just to eliminate any doubt.

People will always find reasons to complain, but this particular avenue could be closed off - it's been done for most other sports. You'll never find a home-town referee in international soccer or rugby. Ice-hockey aside, I saw that many of the events generated some controversy thanks to referee calls. Perhaps it's just human nature?


Treatment for said...

Indeed , canadian referees were something weird , but this did't help the local team.

Andrew Armiger said...

Love your blog, Ross and Jonathan. My comment, however, has nothing to do with this post but to request that you contact me (I looked for 'contact us' info here yet could not find it) "off-board" as I have an inquiry on a different topic, if you do not mind. Thank you for your kind consideration!

Andrew Armiger said...

Forgot to include e-mail:
andrewarmiger [at] gmail [dot] com

institute of lraqi scholars & academician said...

thank you very much

Anonymous said...

Ross and Johnatan. Is there a way to send you an email? I have a research idea that may be of interest to you. My email: 222437@gmail.com.

My blog: www.girevoysportafter40.blogspot.com (dont's worry, research in mind is not on Girevoy Sport)

Dr Eugene Smetannikov