Dwain Chambers is back

Hopefully, you've noticed the newly added Tabs at the top of the page - we've added this to make it a little easier to navigate your way around our archives and to find articles. Thanks to Vanilla from Half-fast for steering me in the right direction to figure out how to add the tabs. While we're in the process of fixing them up and adding and rearranging our content, our email subscribers might get the occasional arbitrary email post which is actually just a page we're inserting to make use of the tabs, so please bear with us! We hope the tabs work well and they make the site a little easier to get around!

But for today, we thought we'd look at a story that has been around in the news for a while now, but one that we missed while I was in the USA - the story of Dwain Chambers.

Dwain Chambers: A headache for sports authorities, but a case control study on the state of doping

Dwain Chambers of Britain was one of the world's most promising sprinters - in 1999, at the age of 21, he claimed bronze at the World Athletics Championships in Spain.

He went on to win the European Championships in 2002, but never really made the big breakthrough, living in the shadow of the dominant sprinter of the early 2000's, Maurice Greene.

Then, in 2003, the wheels came off for Chambers, when his performances were poor, and he failed a drugs test in August. It was subsequently revealed that he had tested positive for THG, the designer steroid made famous by the BALCO scandal. It was Chamber's use of THG that landed him with a 2-year ban from the sport. He later admitted to having used THG since 2002, which would cost him (and team-mates) medals from the 2002 European Championships.

During his ban, Chambers dabbled in American Football, including a failed tryout with the San Francisco 49ers. He eventually returned to competitive athletics in 2006, and even won a medal as part of the British relay team at the 2006 European Championships. It was after this race that one of his team-mates from the 2002 European Championships, Darren Campbell, refused to join the team on the victory lap, in protest against Chamber's drug past. Campbell, along with 2 other team-mates, had been stripped of their own gold medals in 2002 thanks to Chambers' confessed use of THG.

The headache grows - Chambers finds form indoors

But the looming problem for the British Athletic authorities was only going to get bigger. Chambers has returned to form in 2008, and won the British Indoor Championships, having expressed his intention of qualifying for the World Indoor Championships.

The problem for the authorities is that Chambers had effectively retired from athletics in 2006, after the European Champs, when he had again attempted to start a career in American Football with the NFL Europa league. This was mixed in with a stint on a reality TV show, but the net result was that British authorities took Chambers off their list of athletes who would be tested out of competition.

However, on his return, Chambers did everything required of an athlete to qualify for the British team, even winning the indoor 60m title which SHOULD have guaranteed him his place.

But the situation is not so simple - understandably, the British athletics authorities do not want Chambers in their team. In their words:

"The committee was unanimous in its desire not to select Dwain".

And this was AFTER he'd been selected for the team, amid threats of lawsuits and counter-threats should he be omitted.

However, the fact was that there was no law in place to exclude Chambers and so the only basis for leaving him out would be an "exceptional circumstances" clause. This "exceptional circumstance" might have been that Chambers CANNOT run in the Beijing Olympics, thanks to a British Olympic law that gives a life-time ban to any athlete failing a dope test.

They chose not to make use of that law, possibly fearing reprisal from Chambers' lawyers, and so now we will see Chambers competing in a British vest come the World Indoor Championships in March.

But there's more to Chambers than this

So having said just this, Chambers' story is not exceptional. But then you begin to consider some of the things he has said since he was caught and banned. For example, in an interview with Matthew Pinsent in mid-2007, Chambers had the following to say about doping in sport:

"It's simple, science always moves faster than the testers. Some people take chances, some don't, and I was willing to take that chance. I was under the assumption that I wouldn't get caught."

In one sense, one has to applaud Chambers' honesty, as it makes a change from the usual conspiracy theories and denial that characterizes most positive tests these days - the usual tactic is to attack the testers, cry smear campaign, and deny every accusation. Chambers chose instead to speak his mind, revealing what most athletes probably think before they too use drugs.

But then later on, Chambers was asked whether a clean athlete could possibly beat a doped runner, his reply was:

"It's possible, but the person that's taken drugs has to be having a real bad day. That's what I believe."

This was seen to be a 'confession' that most of the top, successful athletes were using drugs and that success was not possible without the use of drugs. This common interpretation of Chambers' comments is probably taken a little out of context, but it earned Chambers almost universal condemnation from former and present British athletes. Now that Chambers is part of the British athletics scene once again, the viewpoints have been expressed from all corners.

For example, in response to Chambers' selection for the World Indoor team for 2008, Dame Kelly Holmes, double Olympic Champion from Athens, was quoted as saying that:

"This was an athlete who went to America, knowingly took a drug that was undetectable at the time, got caught, admitted he'd taken drugs, then went on to say that you can't win anything without taking drugs. It doesn't put us in a good light allowing a cheat, who has admitted he's a cheat, to represent us."

Harsh words, which encapsulate just how strongly some feel about Chambers' inclusion and the possibility that he will be fighting for an Olympic berth later this year. For more quotes and reaction to the story, check out this article.

The interesting possibility of a case control comparison of past vs. present

But apart from all the ethical and legal arguments that this issue has raised, there is also an interesting possible "case-control" study that may arise as a result. I for one, will be very interested to see just how Chambers fares this season.

Because what we have here is an athlete who admitted to using a steroid over a very clearly defined time-period, who is now competing, supposedly drug free.

So lets' say that Chambers comes back and runs the same times as he did during his drug-use days. If this happens, it invites three interesting possible conclusions, the first two of which are:

• Either he is still using drugs, and they are providing the same effect as before
• The drugs he used did not work to begin with

The second option seems unlikely, so it will be very interesting to see how the athletics world responds to Chambers should he be successful in 2008. He is already viewed with suspicion and that will only grow if he is successful this year. Perhaps the only way he will be able to avoid all suspicion and fulfill the role of "anti-doping ambassador" (a role he himself has spoken of) is if he is unsuccessful on the track!

That's a tricky situation to be in - success means suspicion, while avoiding suspicion requires mediocre performances! Of course, there is the third possibility which is that he is now drug-free and still performs at the same levels thanks to his training and dedication, but then being the cynics we are, that's a far less likely scenario!

So it will be very interesting to see how Chambers fares in the coming months. The possible legal wranglings on the horizon will also make for interesting discussion, should Chambers go after the Olympic Games as he's threatened to do. But for now, we'll keep an eye on his performances and see just how he performs!

Ross

Oscar Pistorius: A case where the science does not matter

Latest news on Pistorius - the appeal that will focus on "non-science" matters - why science appears irrelevant to Pistorius

Well, it's been a prolonged absence, but I'm now back in SA having had a great time of it travelling through the USA and Egypt. And so we'll get right into some of the meaty issues that have developed in the last week. And what a week it's been - Roger Clemens and McNamee taking their case to Congress, Dwain Chambers and a brewing storm over his participation, and breakthroughs in the study of fatigue. Those issues to come in more detail...

Pistorius to appeal ban at CAS

But for today, a brief update of the ongoing story of Oscar Pistorius, the South African Paralympic runner who is vying to compete in the able-bodied Olympic Games.

The story is now into its second year, after first hitting the major headlines last year. And we've tried as much as possible to cover the developments with a more critical eye. Indeed, part of the reason for steering the blog in the direction we did (a news site) was to report on scientific issues in a little more detail than the mainstream media.

So this particular issue is a fascinating one, and in a series of posts on it, we've looked at the realm of theoretical evidence that suggests that Pistorius does have a large advantage as a result of his high-tech carbon fibre blades. We then added to this by analysing his debut performances in Europe last year, where all that theory was proven correct and he ran a race that is physiologically impossible. That alone should have been enough to issue a ban ON SCIENTIFIC grounds, but the IAAF, to their credit, performed very extensive testing on the limbs.

Their result? They showed conclusively that Pistorius has a LARGE ADVANTAGE over able-bodies athletes. What was most amazing about this finding, is that that there was an advantage, but just HOW BIG IT WAS - we're talking 30% differences in economy and mechanical efficiency. Difficult to know how that translates to performance, but it's clear it's seconds, not milliseconds. This has not discouraged Pistorius from taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, citing "new evidence" and challenges to the IAAF result.

The only answer that Pistorius will accept

The IAAF testing really should have been the end of the debate, especially considering that Pistorius has opportunities BEFORE the testing to consult his own experts and contribute to the research process. To say after the fact, once the result is announced, that the testing was faulty is either an admission of incompetence to begin with, or simply a plea to keep this issue in the media for a little longer.

Point is, the IAAF tested everything, in duplicate, comprehensively. The theory pointed to an advantage back in June last year, the results from his races suggest that he has the advantage by confirming those theories, and the IAAF testing proved it, beyond all measure of SCIENTIFIC doubt, in my opinion.

But the science is not the issue for Pistorius, the media is

But this is clearly not about the science to Pistorius. Rather, it is obvious that the only answer they will accept is the one that allows him to run. To date, 9 months into this debate, and the Pistorius group has not produced a single shred of valid scientific evidence. In fact, everything scientific they have claimed has been downright laughable. Last year, there were claims that lactate production caused Pistorius' back pains, they have also "proven" that he has no advantage by pointing out that his strides are normal in length.

And now, in the latest of the "scientific barrage" being generated, we have been told that Pistorius clearly has no advantage because another runner, who lost his leg in an accident, has not run faster on the blades than before.

The extent of Pistorius' science

In the latest retort, Pistorius has decided to appeal the IAAF ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. He does this "for all disabled athletes", despite the fact that the Paralympic community are largely silent on this issue. I know personally of at least five Paralympic athletes who are OPPOSED to his campaign (that is 100% of my own sample), but I guess they are not part of the "athlete group" he refers to?

In his latest scientific angle, he draws on the story of a fellow South African, Joseph van der Linde, who was a good, promising sprinter, before a farming accident forced the amputation of his right foot.

He duly continued running, wearing a SINGLE carbon fibre blade. His times, however, were never able to reach those his "pre-accident days". In Pistorius' words:

"If my artificial limbs gave me an advantage, as alleged by the IAAF, Joseph should run faster, not slower," he said.

Never mind the fact that:

• Once an athlete (like van der Linde) loses the limb later in life, they must relearn all the motor control patterns, which means the chances of running properly again are very minimal. Pistorius learned to walk and run on prostheses, so he is an entirely different class of athlete. There is therefore no comparison between the two.
  
• Pistorius runs on two blades, van der Linde only runs on one. The result is that Linde is unbalanced, and this costs MASSIVE energy as he runs, because one leg is highly variable in length, while the other is relatively fixed. This is in fact something we've discussed in detail in the past. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Pistorius should be banned from competing against single-leg amputees, because his advantage of them is even bigger than the advantage over able-bodied athletes. Again, the point is, van der Linde is a completely different case and the comparison is worthless.
  

The truth of the matter - not even van der Linde agrees with Pistorius' argument

So what we have here is Pistorius bringing another athlete into the debate, entirely unwittingly. And what is more, his comparison is not even valid. Now, the only thing that could possible make more of a mockery of this "evidence" is if that athlete himself doesn't agree with Pistorius! And that is exactly what happened!

Joseph van der Linde himself disagrees with Pistorius. Yet somehow, he finds himself in the category of "evidence supporing the defence"! A truly bizarre twist in this story...

But, don't take my word for it. Joseph van der Linde has himself ridiculed Pistorius' comparison, saying that "you cannot compare him to Oscar", and that "Pistorius enjoys advantages over other athletes". You can read his summary and reasons here.

van der Linde actually cuts right to the facts, which is surprising, since he's not a scientist. Yet he displays a better appreciation and capacity to grasp the science than Pistorius. Why is that surprising? Because ever since this story broke, it was always going to be a question of science - Pistorius and his team had to have known that ultimately, they would need to win the argument on scientific grounds. Yet they have been completely ignorant, their science has been laughable and they have nothing but hollow claims to show for their efforts.

To date, that is the only science that has come out of the news of Pistorius' appeal. There is talk, admittedly, of "experts" who have seen flaws in the IAAF testing. But then there are also rumours that Pistorius is consulting with local scientists in an attempt to help his case. These "local experts" do not have the necessary expertise to challenge a world leading German lab on this topic, pure and simple.

The science does not matter to Pistorius - only the exposure and media attention

To me, it is clear that the science is the furthest thing from the agenda. Indeed, Pistorius' agent, Peet van Zyl, was quoted as saying that the case is not going to argued "on technical matters only". So instead of focusing on the facts, we are going to be treated to smokescreens and mirrors, with the bizarre notion that banning an athlete with an ADVANTAGE is discriminatory! In otherwords, the science says he has an advantage, but that is insufficient to prevent him from competing!

Can I suggest that the next step is that a drug cheat will have to be allowed to compete against other athletes because he is simply not as naturally talented as the other athletes and so the drugs are NECESSARY even though they give him an advantage! Too small at birth? No problem, use steroids and growth hormone to bulk up, and if they ban you, just point out that it's not your fault you are not a natural power sprinter. That seems to be where the argument is going.

Unless, that is, Pistorius can prove that the legs don't provide an advantage...but then, that would require scientific testing and evidence, which seems to be in short supply. The reason for that, incidentally, is because the only science that does exist says the advantage is enormous, but selective hearing is fully in play on this one.

Quite frankly, the process is ludicrous, and the cards need to be placed on the table - there is no science to support that there is no advantage, only talk. And unfortunately, the media has willingly gone along with this "truth". There is only the desire to keep this story in the public eye for as long as possible, because the longer it stays there, the longer the cheques are written and the balance climbs. At the risk of sounding cynical, this is not an issue of courage and human spirit any longer, it's financial, and marketing and endorsement related.

So unfortunately, this issue will only end for Pistorius when the auhorities say that "There is NO advantage". This is of course untrue, so I suspect we have much longer to travel on this issue. But don't expect valid scientific facts in defence of Pistorius any time soon.

Ross

Fatigue: A mechanistic breakthrough

Columbia researchers shed light on mechanism of muscle fatigue

First, thanks to many of you who sent us the article by Gina Kolata from the New York Times. It is a hot news week, first with this story breaking on Tuesday and also with Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee testifying before a congressional panel on Wednesday. This kind of story on fatigue is right up our alley here at The Science of Sport, and so let's take a look at this and see what it is all about before we get to the Clemens/McNamee hearings.

Why study fatigue?

Since its inception the profession of Exercise Physiology has focused on "fatigue." This is a broad term, and fatigue has many manifestations. We can fatigue during dynamic maximal exercise such as a peak power output test, and we can fatigue during sub-maximal (endurance) exercise. We can also produce muscle fatigue in the lab while contracting a single limb and muscle group, either repeatedly or continuously. So it has many faces, and exercise scientists have been interested in all of these areas for decades. In fact one of the first exercise labs in North America was the Havard Fatigue Lab, and one of their most famous investigations of fatigue involved two dogs, Joe and Sally, who were fed glucose or nothing while running on a treadmill. The scientists were the first to demonstrate in the lab that carbohydrate ingestion during this type of exercise enhances performance.

Great discoveries occur by accident

While a large number of scientists today are interested in what causes fatigue during endurance exercise, the more mechanistic studies focus on actual muscle fatigue---that is, what is actually happening inside the muscle and how that may or may not cause the muscle to stop working as well.

The clinicians at Columbia University were actually interested in congestive heart failure patients. The problem in these patients is that the heart begins to fail as a pump, and the consequence is that things get a bit backed up. The heart becomes more and more filled with blood, thus losing its ability to actually contract and to pump blood, and it was this weakening of the heart that interested Dr. Andrew Marks at Columbia University.

In their quest to understand their heart failure data, they came to realize that certain events at the molecular level contributed to the cardiac fatigue. The problem is that for muscle, either cardiac or skeletal, to contract, we must produce a successful chain of events. In short, a nerve signal reaches the muscle and stimulates the release of calcium (Ca2+). The calcium is what is actually causing the process of muscle contraction. A special part of the muscle called the sarcoplasmic reticulum, or SR for short, releases calcium, flooding the muscle cells with it. The calcium causes muscle contraction to happen, and when we want to relax the muscle the calcium is then pumped back into the SR, thus causing relaxation of the muscle.

The key to Marks' findings is that his group showed the calcium channels were "leaky," and so the calcium was not reaching its target of the muscle cells. The result was that the muscle could not produce the required amount of force, and in the case of the congestive heart failure patients the consequence of this is that the heart begins to fail in its job as a pump.

Translation - from the lab to the "field"

Calcium blocking drugs were originally developed to lower blood pressure, but Marks' lab altered a calcium-blocking drug so that it was a bit less effective. The result appeared to be a drug that shores up the "leaky" channels. Then they exercised mice for 21 days, with one group receiving the drug and one group a placebo. Both groups showed fatigue over the 21 days, which was measured with a continual treadmill run. However the mice that received the drug ran 13 min longer on the 21st day---77 vs. 64 min for the placebo mice.

To help support this finding, Marks' then collaborated with Dr. David Nieman at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC. The drug cannot be administered to human subjects as it has not yet been approved by the FDA, and so Nieman and Marks instead demonstrated that after cycling three days in row for three hours at 70% VO2max, the cyclists had leaky calcium channels. This suggests that, just like the mice during their 21 day training program, the cyclists were becoming fatigued.

The full pdf file is available to everyone and can be downloaded here. Be warned, however. . .even for scientists it is highly specific, and with all of the special abbreviations and acronyms it might take a while to sift thru!

What on earth does this mean???

So will athletes be taking an "anti-fatigue" drug in the near future? Not likely. . .it will take time before Marks' new drug will become available for use in humans. Clinical trails take years to complete, but more telling is the quote by Dr. W. Robb McClellan from UCLA: "In heart failure, there are three medications that improve mortality, but there have probably been 10 times that many tested." So the odds are against a new drug for this condition, and even if it is approved, WADA and other anti-doping organizations would likely include it on their list of banned substances.

For now what we all must do is follow the development of this drug and see how the clinical trials play out. The problem is that fatigue is such a complex event. . .even if the drug prevents the calcium channels from leaking, that is no guarantee that it will enhance performance during self-paced exercise such as road racing and cycling.

Come back tomorrow for our analysis of Clemens' and McNamee's testimony!

A drug conspiracy? Growth Hormone test

Drug conspiracy? Or administrative bungling? How a potential test for growth hormone slipped through the cracks (and it's possible rescue)

Well, first off, apologies again for the long absence between posts - it's been a frantic period of travel and work (and nothing in particular) and as a result, we've slowed right down in our posting sequence!

I (Ross) spent a large part of the last week and a half working my way steadily across the USA, beginning in Boulder where I was lucky enough to meet some of the local running community and was also blown away by some of the ideas and technology emerging from what must be one of THE meccas for endurance sport - but more on that in a future post. Then I moved progressively along the Grand Canyon, down to Phoenix for the Superbowl (condolences to Pats fans) and ended up in Vegas (which is just untrue - could have sworn I was in a theme park).

In any event, the result of the travels is that we've beena bit slow off the mark on a couple of really interesting stories, but as they say, better late than never! And one of the most interesting ones was this report from last weekend's Telegraph, in which a possible improved test for Growth Hormone is discussed.

The test - 8 years in waiting, while drug cheats prospered

The story concerns Professor Peter Sonksen, an endocrinologist (an expert in hormones) from London's St Thomas hospital, who was working to develop a reliable test for growth hormone prior to the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

As regular readers and any other followers of sport will know, growth hormone is a huge problem among elite atheltes, precisely because it has never really been possible to test for it! The confirmed or alleged use of growth hormone has some high-profile athletes linked to it...think of growth hormone, and you may think of the following athletes:

• Marion Jones - it was one of the drugs in her "cocktail" at BALCO
  
• Lance Armstrong - never "proven", but it was testified at a court case that he'd admitted to its use (among other substances) when questioned by doctors during his treatment for cancer
• Willy Voet and the Festina cycling team - in 1998, the first of the current series of drugs tidal waves broke when Voet was arrested carrying hundreds of vials of growth hormone in his car
• Jan Ullrich - alleged to have been given growth hormone as part of his 'treatment' by doctors in the now infamous Operacion Puerto scandal
• Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite - most recently, baseball was rocked by a scandal involving growth hormone (and steroids), with two of its big name pitchers being named in the Mitchell report. Clemens, for his part, denies using, while Pettite and trainer McNamee have confessed and implicated Clemens. This one should be really interesting, because someone is committing perjury!

There are other big names, but the point is, growth hormone is one of the most widely used drugs, because of it's undetectablity! And the second point is that because there's never been a reliable test, athletes who are accused can simply deny its use to millions, without any fear of being caught out.

So, when the reports emerge that Professor Sonksen has basically perfected a test for Growth Hormone in 2000, prior to the Sydney Olympics, one has to wonder what sequence of events took place to keep that test off the "market" for 8 years!

Because that's the summary of what has happened - Sonksen perfected his test in time for the Sydney Olympics, and promptly had his funding and support from WADA and the IOC withdrawn, and they chose to use another test for Growth Hormone instead. The test they chose is able to detect Growth Hormone in the blood for up to 24 hours after its use. Sonksen's test is able to detect markers of Growth Hormone use for 2 weeks - clearly, given the fact that athletes are now so advanced in their use of doping, the two week option is the better one.

The reason - it may be valid, but why settle for a second rate test?

Now, it's speculative to guess why the IOC and WADA would have chosen the way they did. These stories and decisions are never as simple as they appear with the benefit of hindsight, and WADA and the IOC may have had very good reason to pull support from Sonksen and go with the (now recognised) inferior test. Perhaps they felt that the proximity of the Sydney Games meant the test would not stand up to their legal requirements for a valid test, who knows? This would certainly be a good reason not to use the test in Sydney.

However, what is a mystery is why would they not continue to support the research and the efforts of a laboratory which was clearly very close to the answer? It may not have been useful in Sydney, but they seem to have been so close to an answer, why not pursue it a little further after Sydney? Instead, they settled on a test that only detects Growth Hormone for 24 hours. As a result, we've had a situation where for nine years, all the athletes ever implicated as using Growth Hormone can deny, deny, deny, and only Jones' confession confirms her use of it!

If the Growth Hormone problem is that large, which anyone but for the willfully ignorant (and Pat McQuaide, president of world cycling) will acknowledge, then why not plough money into perfecting the test? Why settle for a test that works for 14 days? Perhaps with more funding, Prof Sonksen would have been able to develop the test that was effective for 30?

The reason the athletes are "one step ahead" of the testers

Of course, in times like these, rumours will abound, ranging from administrative bungling to "conspiracy and cover-up". And while only those within WADA and the IOC know the true extent, what we will say is that given the battle on our hands to save the sport's credibility, and given that we are continuously bemoaning the fact that the athletes seem to stay one step ahead of the testers, it's astonishing that it takes 9 years for part of the SOLUTION to make its way to the testers!

In this particular case, it's not that they were one step ahead, it's that the governing body of the sport and it's anti-doping regulators were simply fast asleep or looking the other way! It's hardly surprising that athletes are a step ahead, when it takes 9 years and the intervention of the UK Sports authorities to push the test back into the spotlight.

But now, thanks to those efforts, the test MIGHT be ready in time for Beijing. Currently, WADA and UK sport are involved in meetings to get the test through the obvious legal requirements.

Sadly, however, it's likely that this test, if it's passed, will simply mean that athletes and their "support teams" will have to work a tiny bit harder to come up with the alternative to Growth Hormone. One gets the impression, based on this sequence of events, that it won't be too difficult to do...

Other sports news - some tiny soundbytes

And then finally, just to wrap up today's post (and to make up for lost posting!), some very brief sports stories that grabbed my attention in the last day or two.

First of all, in Men's Hurdles, Cuba's Dayron Robles is having a spectacular start to the 2008 Indoor season. The reason this is interesting is because at this Summer's Beijing Olympics, one of THE BIG EVENTS is going to be the Men's 110m Hurdles final. That's because it involves the Chinese favourite Liu Xiang. Liu has been the poster boy for the Beijing Olympics - he is China's huge hope for a track and field medal, and has been under massive pressure for about the last 3 or 4 years.

But towards the end of last year, his "lead" over the rest of the world has started to erode, and in particular, it's Robles of Cuba who now poses a huge threat to him. The significance of Robles' early form is that in indoor racing over 60m, the athlete with the fastest start tends to dominate. So Robles' ability indoors suggests that his start and first 40m is a strength. This, in turn, will put pressure on Liu (assuming Robles produces that form in Beijing) and should make for a great race. Liu is already carrying a billion people's hopes on his shoulders - the prospect of Robles 2 m in front of him at the 60m mark is one to look forward to! In our "Review of 2007" post, we gave Liu Xiang the tongue-in-cheek "Losing sleep over the future award". Well, given Robles' early season form, he might yet retain that award in 2008!

Bekele going for indoor 3000m record

Then, in other news, this weekend sees Kenenisa Bekele gunning for the world indoor 3000m record in Valencia, Spain. The record currently stands at 7:24.90, by Daniel Komen of Kenya.

The reason this is so interesting is not only because Bekele is shooting for a massive PB - his current outdoor PB is only 7:25.79, so he's going to have to run faster indoors than he ever has outdoors - tough ask!

Rather, the reason this is interesting is because it suggests that Bekele's focus early in 2008 has again been on the shorter distance, speed-oriented events. Last year, I think it was really noticeable after his loss at the World Cross-country championships, that he came back and reeled off a string of fast times over 3000m and 15000m, running PB's in both distances. However, I feel his longer distance form was not quite as good - his victory in Osaka, while spectacular, was a 'fragile' one, and then he didn't look as strong in some other 10000m events.

So my suspicion is that after his loss, his focus changed to shorter events and perhaps his training to include more speed. It would appear that this remains a goal. That will be encouraging to Tadese and the Kenyans who take him on in Beijing over 10,000m, since they may well be able to find a vulnerability in the longer race. At least, in theory, that's what might happen!

But we'll let you know the results of his world record attempt - my prediction, by the way - he will run 7:27, maybe a low 7:28!

Ross