Tour de France 2009

LeTour rolls on: Drama on the flat roads as gaps appear and Contador loses time

As I am writing this, I am watching the second stage of the Tour de France, and what was looking like a routine day for the sprinters has just gone 'live' because of a split in the main field with about 28km to go. That split was the result of strong cross-winds, which always causes some drama in the peloton as riders get into echelons to try to "hide" from the wind. Slight lapses of concentration and gaps can easily appear. If the riders at the front are alert to this and they force the pace, gaps can be created pretty quickly. A lack of organization in the dropped group then contributes and what should be a routine day out can have crucial bearings on the overall race.

Those in the 27-strong front group include the Maillot Jaune Fabian Cancellara, Lance Armstrong, and just about the whole of the Columbia-High Road team, who were responsible for the pace at the front, as they tried to put their sprinter Mark Cavendish in for his second stage win to go with yesterday's comprehensive win.

Assuming they stay clear, the odds are that Cavendish will claim win number 2, but it's the time gap to the main field, which includes all the other big names, that is of most interest in the larger scheme of the race. Alberto Contador, pre-race favourite and best-placed of the GC contenders in the opening prologue time-trial, is in the second group, and so the debate around who the team leader for Astana would be is about to be given a little more flavour!

Currently, the time-gap to the chasing group is 35 seconds, with 23 km remaining, and by the time I finish this post, we'll know just how much time, if any, has been lost as a result of the split.

Until then, a quick look back on Saturday's time-trial:

Cancellara supreme, but Contador lays down his marker

The opening prologue was won by the favourite, Fabian Cancellara, which was no great surprise. Most of the attention was reserved for the Astana team, who find themselves with the "dilemma" of having potentially 4 overall race winners in their team. Between Kloden, Leipheimer, Armstrong and Contador, one of the main talking points of this race is how they'll manage the team. The main focus has been on Armstrong and Contador, and team manager Johan Bruyneel announced before the Tour that Contador would be the team leader.

That did little to dispel questions around Contador's leadership, and so when he finally left the start gates after 7pm, the pressure was on to see whether he could do the ride of a leader. Given that by this time, three of his team-mates were already in the top 5, he had to do a great ride.

And he did. The first check-point at 7.5km saw Contador fastest of all by 6 seconds, ahead even of the time-trial specialists like Brad Wiggins and Cancellara. Admittedly, it was an overall uphill section, but it showed that Contador has some great form. He did fade a little in the second half, losing 24 seconds to Cancellara and eventually finishing second about 18 seconds down.

But, he did succeed at establishing the "pecking order" within his own team, at least for the time-being. The gap to Armstrong, incidentally, is another 22 seconds, with Leipheimer 12 seconds down and Kloden only 4 back of his team leader.

It's a marker that the team time-trial will belong to Astana - 4 out of the top 10 says that they should win tomorrow's stage and put their top 4 men into the top 4 of the overall race.

Sastre - the biggest loser

The big losers from the opening prologue were Denis Menchov and Carlos Sastre. Sastre, the defending champion, was 1:06 down on Cancellara, and 48 seconds behind Contador. Given that this year's Team Time-trial has no limited time losses (the last two have had a "cap" on the time that can be lost), Sastre faces the real prospect of going into the Pyrenees almost 2 minutes down. That was always going to be the case, of course, a 48 second gap over a 15.5km time-trial is big and damaging to his overall chances.

Contador - too strong too soon?

Contador's ride was excellent, but there is doubt in my mind as to whether he might be too strong too soon. He was the best to the first time-check, and was crowned Spain's time-trial champion only a week ago, both signs of a rider in top shape.

The problem is that we know that in a three-week race like the Tour, you have to be 'underdone' on the start line, because the cumulative training effect of the first week or two leaves you either slightly overtrained by week three, or completely overcooked. Most of the research around the Tour has found that power outputs are about 10% lower by week 3 than in week 1, and so the race is a war of attrition. No one gets better, but without a doubt, some riders get a lot worse than others, and a big part of it is how primed they are in the first week.

For Contador to be that good so early raises some serious doubts about whether he'll be strong at the end. This is particularly true if you bear in mind that Contador was in great shape as far back as Paris-Nice. In that race, Contador dominated the race until he blew completely when he became hypoglycemic. That happens, of course, but the more important thing is to note that Contador was in good condition back in May, and now enters the Tour de France again in great shape. Physiologically, there may be danger signs for Contador.

This tour is especially fascinating because of the climb up Mont Ventoux on the second last day. Ordinarily, the overall GC contendors will rely on the big mountains to do the damage, and then limit time-losses on the last time-trial (which usually comes on the second last day). The biggest time-gaps are created around days 7 to 14, and not day 20, which will happen this year.

So the climb up the Mont Ventoux means that this is a very long tour, and there is a very real chance of massive time gaps being created on Mont Ventoux - they will be larger than the gaps that can be created in a time-trial.

Therefore, it's more important than ever for riders to start the Tour slightly under-trained, so that they can maintain their form during the Tour. The concern for Contador is that he's already there, and has only one way to go. Time will tell...

Stage 2 - the race is "live"

Stage 2 is done - it's been won by Mark Cavendish, his second stage win. But the big news is around the main pack, and Contador, who has lost 39 seconds to Armstrong. So too have Cadel Evans, the Schleck brothers, Carlos Sastre and all the other GC contenders. It is Armstrong who now assumes the position of highest placed rider on his team, and if the Astana team delivers in tomorrow's Team Time-trial, then Armstrong will wear yellow by this time tomorrow.

Team leadership questions raised anew

And so the same questions will be raised anew - Armstrong in yellow, Contador to be the domestique? Or will the team be split in support of BOTH when we hit the Pyrenees come Friday? Many have brought up the great duels between Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault in 1986, when LeMond was the stated leader of the team, and Hinault was meant to be riding in support of him. Hinault had other ideas, and attacked his own team-mate on numerous occasions, unable to contain his own competitive instincts.

Having laid down a marker in the prologue, Contador might have felt that his claims to team leadership were established. Today's time loss did little to retain the pecking order, and as many suspected, the battle within the Astana team might take centre-stage.

In Armstrong's own words, the day before the Tour began, were "If Alberto is better, I will ride for him". Note the conditional nature of the support - "If" is a very loaded descriptor, a loophole that keeps options open, which is precisely why so much doubt exists around the team. There is no commitment there, no guarantee of support, and that means Contador is under pressure from within.

And more to the point, Contador's case for being "better" is a lot less clear cut than it was an hour ago...

Ross

Happy 60th Birthday Tim Noakes

Happy 60th Birthday, Tim Noakes

In sport, one's legacy is often easily identified as the number of medals or records won in a career - Usain Bolt's legacy, still young, may be his three golds and three WR in Beijing, Haile Gebrselassie's his 30+ world records, Olympic title against Paul Tergat in 2000 and his never-failing smile.

In science, legacies are often equally obvious. Albert Einstein's is summed up in one equation - E = mc squared. Stephen Hawking's, to me as a lay person, is "Black holes and baby universes", and Jonas Salk's legacy is encapsulated by celebrations in the street after the polio vaccine was discovered.

For Professor Tim Noakes, who is my boss, and was both our supervisors when we did our PhDs in Cape Town, legacy is difficult to pin down. Tim turned 60 yesterday, and we celebrated his birthday this morning at the Sports Science Institute. It is appropriate, at such a time, to congratulate him on his birthday and use the opportunity to thank him for what he has done, for us, for the field of exercise science, and for the countless others who have been inspired, informed or influenced by him.

His contribution to science might be found in the 400 research articles when you search for his scientific publications on PubMed. It might be his famous and best-selling book, Lore of Running. Or perhaps it is the fact that he is one of few exercise scientists to have a Wikipedia entry about him!

It's easy to try to sum up a life of achievements in a single, measurable thing like number of publications. But that misses out on what may be even more important, and that is the number of people inspired through his work and personality. And what Tim has done, for us, as well as for countless others, is to make exercise science applicable, accessible and understandable, and in so doing, inspire people like the two of us to pursue it as a career.

Jonathan and I both arrived at where we're at because of Tim's inspiration. In my case, it was reading Lore of Running at the age of 14, since it was the only book on running or science in my local library. A career decision was made then, and my journey to UCT, as well as my PhD thesis topic, was decided for me by that event. For Jonathan, Tim's "pull" was enough to see him leave the state of Texas, and pursue a career of research in fluids, taking on the likes of Gatorade and dehydration.

For both of us, the initial draw to sports science at UCT was followed by many years of inspiration, during which time he taught us the value of critical, logical thinking, how to challenge paradigms, and speaking for myself, the value of translating scientific ideas for those who have an interest in what we do, but who do not have intensive scientific training.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that this website, and the way we are trying to relate science to sport, is inspired by Tim's approach to the world. Those who have seen Tim present his work will understand that merely doing great science is not enough, one has to communicate and apply it for everyone else.

Tim has, over the years, ruffled feathers and even offended many, and I've no doubt some people will view him as almost heretical - his willingness to challenge paradigms, to call out flaws in thinking, and to put himself out with theories has invited much criticism from those who feel most challenged by his views.

And of course, he has been incorrect, which he himself is the first to admit - he is fond of a quote saying that "50% of what we know is wrong; the problem is that we do not know which 50% it is". And so, looking back, his theories on matters such as the central governor and fatigue have developed as new information has come to light, with theories from less than ten years ago now left behind as knowledge evolves. Unfortunately, there are many who have refused to evolve with it, and so much of the criticism (and I can relate this from my own experience, having done my PhD in the area) is based on work that we ourselves have moved on from.

Regardless, Tim has pressed on, and his greatest achievements to date include his contribution to our understanding of fatigue, introducing the role of the brain and the so-called Central governor to the argument. He is known for taking on Gatorade, and for challenging the theory that dehydration should be avoided at all costs. He was the first to point out how drinking TOO MUCH was just as likely to be dangerous, even fatal. He is also known by many as the author of Lore of Running perhaps THE seminal book on running, which has no doubt inspired many and informed many more.

But for us, as two former students, he is an inspiration who has pointed us in what we believe is the right direction and provided the impetus to move forward.

So here is to Professor Tim Noakes, a very happy 60th birthday, congratulations and "be perfect"!

Ross & Jonathan

Oslo Golden League preview

LeTour, and Golden League momentum picks up in a star-studded Oslo meet

It's a great sporting weekend - Wimbledon, Tour de France, the final Lions-Boks rugby match (and a chance to see whether it's even possible for the Boks' coach so say anything more embarrassing than he has so far, because the rugby is not nearly as intriguing), and then the second Golden League meeting of the year.

The Tour is the big one, and for the next three weeks, the eyes of the world will be on the Alps, Pyrenees, and flatter roads of France as the drama unfolds. Every year, the Tour starts amid much hype of how strictly controlled drug testing is going to be, and sure enough, every year a number of riders are caught.

Last year, the King of the Mountains, third overall, and five stage wins were 'nullified' by positive drug results, giving further credence to the theory that success is inextricably linked to doping in the sport. Occassionally, one of them speaks out, as Bernard Kohl did after last year, and the sport is exposed more than ever. In the words of a friend of mine - "cycling makes fools of its fans", and let's hope the next three weeks does not continue that trend!

Somewhere in the midst of all this controvery a bike race happens, and it promises to be one of the most intriguing in recent years, because of the return of Lance Armstrong, and the inter-team rivalry that is threatening to unfold in the Astana team, which also possesses the pre-race favourite, Alberto Contador.

Here in SA, you'd think only one man is riding, the TV advertising has focused exclusively on Armstrong, and not on a host of other characters who it seems are secondary to the plot. He brings a level of interest that the sport has not seen for a few years, and how the team dynamic is shaped in the first 10 days is likely to be one of the big talking points. That does not even factor in the likes of Schleck, Sastre (the defending champion), Menchov and Evans.

Over the next three weeks, we'll see who emerges in the headlines (for hopefully the right reasons), and we'll do our best to add some insight into the race, particularly when the roads head upwards in the mountain stages. So join us then!

Golden League

The first big sports event of the weekend (for us, anyway) is the Golden League meeting in Oslo. It's number 2 of 6 for 2009, the first being Berlin just under a month ago. The focus of the athletics world is Berlin, in August, for the IAAF World Champs, and so a lot of stars are out this weekend.

They include Kenenisa Bekele, Abubaker Kaki, Asafa Powell, Sanya Richards, Meseret Defar, Meselech Melkamu, Augustine Choge, and a host of great field event athletes.

Rather than duplicate an already complete and concise summary, I refer you to LetsRun.com's preview of the meeting, which highlights all the great events, and the head-to-head contests that add intrigue.

For me, the hightlight promises to be the men's 5,000m race, where Kenenisa Bekele has continued with his intention of winning the jackpot by winning all six meetings (either at 3,000 or 5,000m). One month ago, he was perhaps at his most vulnerable, having returned from a stress fracture last year, and an apparent muscle injury only 2 weeks before that in Holland. He was made to work harder than ever before, and it was not the same controlled, dominant performance we are accustomed to.

Yet he was still able to win, and with another 3 weeks added to his recovery/preparation, it will surely be more difficult than ever to dethrone him. A field of no less then 10 men who've run sub-13 will try, and that should be one of the highlights.

We'll bring you any insights if the meeting produces them!

Enjoy the action!
Ross

Oscar Pistorius continued

A more diverse range of "non heavy-duty" thoughts and opinions on Oscar Pistorius

Well, after what was actually an epic post on the science of Oscar Pistorius yesterday, I decided it might be good to present a less scientific argument on the same topic. As I mentioned yesterday, the in-depth, "heavy-duty" dissection of scientific method was not the purpose of this site, but it was the next step in the ongoing debate over the Pistorius advantage.

I can't stress enough that the type of analysis of the research done on Pistorius should be done for all science, and it should have been part of the CAS deliberations. It wasn't, and so instead of a fair hearing and verdict, Pistorius was, through the combined efforts of science and law, able to hijack the hearing and take the verdict without any scrutiny of the research. That kind of scrutiny, even at a basic level, would have revealed that:

• He was compared to distance runners on many occasions, not sprinters
• The tests performed on him were not fully explained - the methods seemed to have differed from one athlete to the next, probably because they were done over a long time period and therefore direct comparisons are invalid
  
• His state of training may have been completely different to the athletes he was compared to, which would massively influence the findings and comparison
• Those tests may also be unreliable for the purposes they were used - comparing two athletes requires a different approach than generating a database
  
• They are very easy to manipulate, in the absence of independent verification
• Comparisons were made with selected athletes, without explanation of why other athletes' data was ignored - at one point, Pistorius is compared to 1 sprinter and 2 distance runners, when in theory, 4 sprinters were available for comparison. Apart from the fact that the comparison is wrong, the lack of transparency represents a major problem in an issue this controversial.
  
• It was concluded that Pistorius was "essentially the same", when in fact the statistical method used by the paper revealed a significant difference

All in all, the paper is fraught with error - above is the short summary, because I know yesterday was a monster post, and so for those who didn't have the time to plough through it, that's the summary - there's more to it, of course, but feel free to spend some time in the epic analysis!

Some other viewpoints

For today though, I thought it might be good to have a more debatable post, more as a filler than anything. So here are a couple of links that might be of interest.

The first comes from a former elite 400m runner in South Africa, and a person whose insight and expertise I really respect and value. Arnaud Malherbe is still the SA record holder at 44.59s, and his blog has described some of the issues around Pistorius and his selection for the World Championships in Berlin later this year. They are well worth reading, because his approach is less scientific, and more legal and logical. His insight is that of a former athlete, someone who understands the sport intimately, and I think the points he makes are valid, particularly regarding selection for the team. It's always interesting to get the views of an athlete, rather than the rather heavy science you had thrown at you yesterday!

Blade Runner Part I
Blade Runner Part II
Blade Runner Part III

The third article in particular deals with the possibility of selection if he reaches a qualifying standard - that currently seems a long way off - a 1.61 second improvement is required within the next two weeks and he's been well off the sort of form required. But, he runs is Oslo this Friday, and the possibility exists.

Then here are some other interesting thoughts from a PhD student, written last year, but only discovered today. Karl Zelik is a PhD student at the University of Michigan. His PhD topic? The biomechanics of locomotion, amputees and the use of prosthetic technology to aid movement. So he is one person who has insight gained from years of immersion in the subject.

He presents some quotes from Prof Herr, who was actually one of the authors one the paper that I discussed yesterday. One quote in particular stands out:

"Nevertheless, Herr has publicly stated that within 20-30 years, he predicts the Paralympics will be faster than the Olympics. To the Boston Globe, he further commented that "Even today, some people pity those with disabilities. In the future, [the disabled] will be physically more capable. And then, being physically unique will no longer inspire pity. It'll be unique. And even sexy."

The research produced by Pistorius suggests this prediction has not yet been fulfilled. But yesterday's post was all about how that research could have, and should have been dealt with in a matter befitting its quality - it should have been discarded through careful scientific scrutiny, not the whirlwind hearing the CAS gave it. Perhaps 20 to 30 years is a conservative estimate. I hope so - I would love to see a 41 second 400m, and then we'll tackle the topic once again, when Pandora's box is open.

That's it for Pistorius (for now). I am hopeful that common sense, scientific validity and correct research will prevail and the issue will again find its way into research labs or courts, this time, the right way. But until then, enough on this topic. The summer sports year is in full swing this weekend - the Tour, Oslo Golden League, Wimbledon, and the build-up to Berlin, so that's where our attention turns

Join us then!
Ross