London recap: Track athletics, a review & previews

London recap: Dibaba dominant, a fast track, Pistorius science and a great men's 10,000m looms

Apologies for missing a day on the recaps - trying to follow the Olympics and work has left me feeling a little like Ryan Lochte began looking in his last few events in the pool.  And he has gold, silver and bronze medals to show for it!

But here are some thoughts from the track.  I still will comment on South Africa's rowing gold medal, because this is perhaps the most significant medal we've won at a Games.  And yes, I'm biased, but I'll tell you the story of why this is the case at some stage!

But for now, track and field kicked off last night.  Here's a look back, and forward:

1)  Track and field - Dibaba dominates, Ennis on track and Pistorius in SI

Last night saw the first track medal awarded, and it went to arguably the greatest female distance runner we've ever seen in Tirunesh Dibaba.  The Ethiopian destroyed the field with a 2:10 final 800m, a 62 second final lap, and won by an enormous six seconds.  Most remarkably of all, she really did look as though she had it in her to go quite a bit faster in the final few laps.  Earlier this year, she covered the final mile of a 5,000m race in 4:22.  According to Letsrun.com's recap of the race, her final mile tonight was 4:33.  Different distance and race leading up, of course, but it shows the capacity she has to finish and so it's difficult to see anyone beating her in a championship race.

Before the race, we all thought she would be pushed to the limit, because facing her was Vivian Cheruiyot, last year's dominant distance runner, who had gone unbeaten in just under two years.  She ended third, with Sally Kipyego splitting her and Dibaba.

Dibaba defended her 10,000m title from Beijing (a first), and added to her four world titles on track, two previous Olympic titles (an unprecedented double in Beijing - she may match that here), and four cross-country world titles.  She wasn't listed as a member of the Ethiopian 5,000m team, but surely it would be beauracracy gone mad to leave her out.  Cheruiyot would be a more difficult proposition over 5,000m, and Meseret Defar would also challenge, but Dibaba was so dominant tonight that you'd have a tough time betting on anyone else.

The guys at Letsrun.com have the race brief and analysis here, including post-race quotes from a satisfied Dibaba and a disappointed Cheruiyot.

2)  A super fast track

Also in track action, the first round of the women's 100m produced some noteworthy performances.  Normally, the first round of the short sprint is a non-event, as everyone shuts down with 50m to go and does what is necessary to qualify.  And that is more or less what happened yesterday, but it still managed to produce some incredibly fast times.  A 10.83s for Jeter, a 10.93s for Okagbare and 10.94s for Veronica Campbell-Brown were the fastest times.  There were national records and personal bests everywhere, and nobody really looked like they were extending themselves.

Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce was ridiculously comfortable winning her heat in 11.00s, looking as though she was doing a light stride rather than a 100m race.  The performances did have a following wind, but it wasn't that significant, and so it seems the London track is incredibly quick.  We will get further confirmation of that in a short while when the men run their first round (though I believe it may be raining), and then the women's semi-finals and final tonight will confirm that for sure.  With so many women so comfortably under 11.00s, it should be an incredibly fast race later.  Expect fireworks.

3)  Ennis on course

Also in action later is Jessica Ennis, the favorite for the heptathlon and the face of the London Games, at least its track programme.  She got off to a great start, with PBs in the hurdles and 200m, to take a pretty solid lead heading into day 2, where she has to confront a javelin event that has been a weakness before.  The talk was that she's focused on it to the point that it is no longer a huge weakness.  If that is the case, and if she can stand up under what is some pretty massive pressure (ala Cathy Freeman in Sydney), then a good long jump in the morning might well put her into an almost unassailable lead, and lead to gold for the local heroine.

4) Pistorius starts his campaign - David Epstein on the science

This morning's track action will be dominated by the 100m men who make their first appearance, and then Oscar Pistorius, who runs in the 400m heats.  His presence, while inspirational, is also debatable, and the question around advantage will persist.  As it should - the process by which the "science" cleared him was so dubious it was untrue, and his PR-machine has made people think it cleared him, when in fact the science says something else entirely.

David Epstein of Sports Illustrated has asked some of those questions, and produced this brilliant article summing up the views.  If you're watching the race, you'll probably be debating his presence.  This article is recommended reading before you do.

5) Farah vs Bekele vs Kenya vs Rupp - the men's 10,000m tonight

Jess Ennis' gold medal may be part of a golden double for Great Britain, because immediately after the women's heptathlon concludes with the 800m, Mo Farah will attempt to win the 10,000m gold against a field that is stacked with intrigue.  He takes on a field that includes Kenenisa Bekele, who, if he wins, joins Dibaba in achieving an unparalled defense of his title, with one exception - he'll have defended twice.  Haile Gebrselassie tried and failed to win a third Olympic 10k crown, and now Bekele has that shot.

Bekele has improved his times, but not his positions, in all his major 5,000m races so far this year - he started with a very slow 13:14, then jumped to 13:01, then a 13:00 and 12:56.  That's encouraging, but he was always being comfortably out-kicked in the final lap.  His 10,000m form has been more impressive, and of course last year he bounced back from not even finishing the Daegu 10,000m to run the world's fastest time of 26:43.

This all points to his likeliest tactic is to make sure the pace is fast and building in the final 3,000m.  His agent earlier this week mentioned that Bekele was over-raced and over-trained during that season of 5,000m races, and so having gone away to prepare with a single-minded focus, you wouldn't bet against Bekele arriving in London in at least the same kind of shape, being able to run 26:40.  However, that may not be the kind of shape needed to win a championship 10,000m, and that's where it gets so interesting.

In much the same way that Ethiopians wound it up in the women's race, Bekele needs to avoid a final 400m dash.  For Dibaba, I suspect it would not have made a difference anyway, but for Bekele, it would.  Mo Farah and even Galen Rupp have beaten him handily over 5,000m, always in the final lap, and he can't afford to be an extra in that storyline again.  Farah in particular is dangerous, and will in all likelihood win a final lap sprint.  Last year in Daegu, I felt that Farah took the pace on too early, kicked from too far out, and found Jeilan of Ethopia just too quick in the last 300m.  This year, there's no Jeilan, and Farah will be more prepared, or more astute, too.  He'll also be motivated by what is likely to be incredibly home support.

This is all a departure from previous Games, because we've always spoken of what others need to do to shake Bekele before the bell lap, and now the roles are reversed.  Farah will be defending until the bell, Bekele attacking.

Into this tactical intrigue, you have the Kenyan challenge.  It lacks a "legend" in the form of a Paul Tergat or even a credentialed 10,000m track runner, but it still has a balance that might just be perfect for the race.  Wilson Kiprop won the Kenyan trials, which makes him a contender, but the reality is that his best performances have come on the roads.  He is coming down in distance for this race, and so his approach, like that of Bekele, will surely be to press a long way from home.  In a final lap, it's easy to see him finishing out of the medals.  To win gold, he goes early, and that means the chance of an unlikely alliance between a Kenyan and Ethiopian, as this is exactly what Bekele probably needs.

The other Kenyans are Moses Masai and Bidan Karoki.  Karoki in particular is interesting, as he's shown aggression in previous races, and might provide even more spice in an already intriguing race.

And then there is Rupp.  Before last year, few would have picked him to be a contender, but his final lap speed has improved so much in the last year that he now becomes a very good chance.  He also has the ability to run a sub-13 5,000m, so a slow start, with a strong second half is not a huge problem.  Nor is a slow race to 9,000m.  And so he's almost certain to be in contention, and that means the chance of a first non-African medal in the event for a long, long time.  Farah, of course, is the other non-African, though he was of course born in Africa.

It promises to be a fabulous race.  I am completely undecided as to how it will go.  I think Farah, with his speed and the home support, is probably the logical favorite...just.  But having watched Dibaba last night, I just have a feeling that the Ethiopians have arrived in London with exactly the right form.  Bekele has done this before, knows what is required and history shows that he's able to round into excellent condition in less time than he's had here.  The only question is tactical, and whether he can get them right.

Right now, as I'm writing this, I'll predict that Bekele wins this from Farah, but in an hour from now, I'll probably think differently.  However it goes, it could well be a classic, because not only is the winner in question, but the manner is so open, and there are so many options for how this race might develop over the 27 minutes that it takes.  A highlight of the Games, for sure.

Join me later for insights!
Ross

London day 5: Sporting Giant claims gold

London Day 5: GB on the golden board as Sporting Giants bears fruit and other thoughts

Two very quick thoughts on medal-stories from the day's action

1)  The "Tall and talented" programme bears fruit

So the hosts got on the Gold medal board today, courtesy Heather Stanning and Helen Glover who absolutely dominated the  women's pair rowing final at Eton Dorney.  It was the cue for relief and wild celebration for the home fans, with an announcement on the London Tube one of many ways the word got round.  One has to say that the home support has been incredible - just look at the support for the cycling time-trial today and you see an Olympic Games that has truly been embraced by its hosts.

But apart from the obvious, the gold medal is significant because it represents the first Olympic delivery of UK Sport's Sporting Giants programme, which was created five years ago to identify future medal winners for Team GB.  Entry criteria - you had to be tall - 180cm for women, 192cm for men.  At least, that was the start.  Athleticism helped, of course, and Helen Glover met those standards, applied and found herself undertaking a journey that culminated in gold today.  Her story was already being held up as an example of targeted talent identification - I first heard of her (and the programme) at a sports science conference in the UK some years ago), and it's sure to be even more well-known after today.

Some of the programme's numbers are laid out at the end of this article, and it's interesting to see that the next phase is already in place, with the creation of a plan for Rio to build on 2012.  That plan takes a systematic approach to a) characterising the success factors for different sports, and b) identifying where "weak" sports may exist.

It's a cold and calculating approach to sport, it has to be said.  Last year in London, I attended a conference ahead of the Games, and one of the more interesting concepts was that the UK employed a "horizontal jumps specialist".  A PhD in engineering, his full-time job was to deconstruct long-jump and triple-jump performance, to ask what determined the length of the jump, and then knowing what would be required to win medals in London, how best to advise coaches when working with athletes.  It's a comprehensive approach where every percent matters.  But that's the kind of approach that produces results, though of course it's expensive and intensive.

Those of you who watched the Tour de France this year were watching one of the many outcomes of this approach, because systematic and logical "deconstruction" of cycling performance was one of the factors that drove Sky to the title for Wiggins.  They spoke of "marginal gains", which is another term bandied about in the conversation around high performance management.  It works, and it is impressive, and Glover is testament to that.

What is also intriguing is the cost-benefit analysis, and I have no idea what that might be, without knowing exactly how much money goes into it.  Comparing this programme to the alternative is equally challenging (that is, if you didn't spend X million on Sporting Giants, how would you spend it?).  But it's a fascinating illustration of one area that sports science is being applied, and there are sure to be more athletes who fly its flag in the next 9 days, starting tomorrow with another rower, Vicky Thornley in the women's eights.

2) The doping story that will not go away

All day, the emails have come in regarding Ye Shiwen's performance, not least of all because news outlets like CNN and VOA seem insistent on continuing the discussion. I must confess to being a little tired of it now - it's an issue that will receive no clarity, and is only creating tension between those who have a cynical view and those who do not.  Racism enters the picture, the debate is clouded and it ends up being a losing situation all round.  I am sure there will be a need for more thoughts on it, but for now, let me try to wrap it up and then focus on the upcoming athletics in future posts, rather than this draining discussion.

Take a look at the following two articles.

First, here is an article that points out that GB's Rebecca Adlington and Australian Ian Thorpe have done similar kinds of performances, with respects to finishing laps and improvements, as Ye Shiwen.  It makes some good points - I don't think they're all relevant, but what they do highlight is that this is a debate where one person can say X, and another can just as easily come along and say Y.  You'll recall that the Guardian recently ran a lengthy interview with a swimming insider John Leonard where he said pretty much the exact opposite, and the article linked to above takes his quotes and "exposes" them as insufficient in the current debate.  Fair enough.

It's just too easy to counteract each argument, each "reason" with one of your own, depending on which side of the doping-accusation divide you stand to begin with.  The point of giving the counter-view, then, is to show that this debate really shouldn't be polarized in either direction.   Unfortunately, the media have done this in a big way already.  I tried to analyze her pacing the other day, purely because it was an interesting physiological concept, and that too was turned into proof that she was doping, even though the relationship is indirect at best - the "hunt" leads to mass confusion, helping no one.

Truth is, if you are taking up a position at the extreme, whether you're the side of those saying "She must be doping", or whether you're on the side of those who say to leave it altogether, you're probably wrong.  This is a debate that calls for a comfortable seat on the fence, and then we can wait it out (it's not often I'd say that, but it's true here!)

This is also the reason why performance analysis will never constitute proof.  Let me repeat that - performance analysis will never constitute proof.  Put differently, in case you missed it - you cannot analyze someone's performance, be it their age, their improvement, their splits, and infer that they are doping based solely on these observations.  Why?  Because performance is too complex, and we have neither the sensitivity nor the reliability to make a strong conclusion.

So, what performance analysis can do is ask questions.  That's all.  The questions are asked based on what we see, but they are answered based on what we can find.  I'm all for questions - I think that questions drive transparency, and transparency is the key to cleaning up sport.  If you ask the hard questions, you force people to reveal more, or you show them to be liars who are trying to cover things up.  I, for one, WANT to trust the system, but history has made me hesitant.

If you are new to the site, then you'll have missed it, but for the last four years, every July, we spend hours dissecting cycling performances, because every year there are allegations of doping.  They're often allegations without "proof", but they're not unreasonable, because cycling has shown itself to be suspect.  If you wear yellow, you are under the spotlight. It doesn't matter whether you're Spanish, French, English, Italian or American.  Wear yellow, someone will ask you.  It's a magnet for anti-doping speculation.  Sad reality.

More broadly, anyone who succeeds at sport is also under a spotlight - if you want to find a "suspicious athlete", just look for who is wearing a medal!  OK, that's extreme, and I'm being over-cynical to make a point (I don't really believe this, by the way), but that's the climate of sport.  When Bolt, or Blake, or Gay, wins the 100m title on Sunday, you know that people are going to wonder.  Winners are marked as 'questionable'.

Unfortunately, some winners are more questionable than others.  That too is valid, albeit harsh on some, because it's largely historical.  And those in sport have been lied to too often to just believe denials.  In this second article, Craig Lord asks some harsh questions of coach Denis Cotterell, who has vehemently defended Ye.  He is on one extreme, in the same way that some media have adopted an extreme view that "she must be doping", he's gone the other way.

My point, again, is that neither extreme is right.  Let's ask questions, but let's seek answers over time, with proper testing.  The only answer will come from testing, but not in-competition, and not even the sporadic testing that is done.  "Aggressive" longitudinal testing, the kind that 'scares' athletes into less doping, the kind that changes behaviour and which forces doping to levels so low that it may not discernibly affect performance, that's what is needed.  If that means that some swimmers are affected more than others, good.  If it means the entire sport slows down, then even better.

But that's where the answer lies.  The question is found in performances, in history, and while these can easily become generalizations, they are not bad, in and of themselves.  The answers, however, lie in "detective work", and testing.  Stop looking for "smoking guns" - you will not find them.  Rather accept the challenge faced by anti-doping authorities, and push for transparency, so that we can all trust the performances.  And focus instead on the gold-medal wining performances, not racist allegations and retaliations.

In any event, athletics is on the horizon, and that is where the Games get really interesting.  Previews will come soon, along with recaps.

Ross

Science of the Olympics Part 2: Doping

Science of the Olympics presentation, part 2: Doping

So the other day I showed you the first part of a talk I gave to the general public, and it covered technology in clothing, specifically the swimsuits.

Today, it's part 2, and it deals with doping.  I tried to explain the biological passport concept, how it evolved out of the realization that traditional anti-doping methods were relatively ineffective, and that our insistence on finding a "smoking gun" in order to detect doping was compromising the fight against doping.  That is, we were naive to think that simply testing for a substance, either in or out of competition, was going to catch cheats and dissuade potential cheats.  It's just too easy to avoid detection, and the effect of drugs persists long after the drug is gone.

So, we have a paradigm shift in doping control, and it involves longitudinal testing in the form of a biological passport.  The concept is that rather than try to find the substance in the body, we can find its physiological effects.

The talk covered the basics, and then gave some examples of how the practice changes behavior, and more promisingly, performance.

It's by no means foolproof, and it's by no means the finished article.  And the evidence is part of a massive jigsaw puzzle, of which the slides below capture only a tiny part.  Of course, in my presentation, I explained much of the context, and so without that, the slides may seem incomplete.  The context includes, for example, our recent discussions on cycling performance, and on the legal process behind the passport - I couldn't get it all into the visuals.  Search the site for "biological passport" to find those pieces if you're hungry for more!

But it's hopefully a nice visual way of introducing the ideas to you.

More to come in the next few days, including the science of Oscar Pistorius.

And of course, Day 5 is underway, the recap comes later!

Ross

London 2012 Day 4: Quick thoughts

London Day 4 recap: le Clos pips Phelps, Phelps claims the record, a badminton farce and more on Shiwen

Four thoughts on yesterday's Olympic action

1)  le Clos wins gold by 0.05s from Michael Phelps in the race of the Games so far

South Africa is celebrating a gold medal today, after Chad le Clos and Michael Phelps produced one of the great races of the Games in the 200m butterfly.  It was le Clos, and not Phelps, who claimed the gold, ending Phelps' reign in the event and giving South Africa a second gold.

The race was expected to be a coronation for Phelps, as he needed only one more medal to equal Larissa Latynina’s all-time Olympic medal haul of 18.  And for 199m of the 200m race, it seemed he would do so with gold.  But in the final 1m, in a sequence that was astonishingly reminiscent of the 100m butterfly final from Beijing, the lead changed hands, as Phelps found his last stroke too short of the wall, and his long glide left the door open for le Clos to snatch a dramatic win.  Four years ago, Phelps was the beneficiary of Milorad Cavic's long glide, winning by 0.01s.  The role was reversed last night as the greatest swimmer the sport has ever seen lost out by 0.05s to the South African debutant.

Having earned a favourable center-lane for the final, le Clos had the opportunity to measure his effort off Phelps the entire race, and he stayed in touch throughout, turning reaching 150m only 0.58s behind Phelps.  It was the perfect position, and he ate progressively into Phelps’ advantage over the final 30m.  Still, Phelps looked certain for gold until that very final stroke.  It was a reminder of the margins between gold and silver at the Olympic level.

Phelps’ “failure” at the finish was the talk of the commentators on the broadcast, which is understandable - the historical context of the race, Phelps' dominance of the event in the past, and hey, it is Michael Phelps, after all, were the reasons that the talk was more of the silver medalist than gold.

This did something a disservice to le Clos’ performance though.  But being South African, you'll forgive me for looking to Lane 5 and not Lane 6 for some thoughts, at least at first.   It has to be said that Le Clos did exactly what any Olympian, particularly in their first Games, aspires to do – he got faster and faster, race by race, and ended with an enormous personal best.  He was comfortable in the heats (fifth fastest), then swam a personal best and African record in the semi-finals to earning his favourable lane, and then he went even faster in the final.  He ended with a PB of 1:52.96, over two seconds faster than he brought to London.  One cannot ask for more from a young swimmer.

Of interest too, is that le Clos’ winning time is faster than Phelps swam in the World Championships last year (1:53.34), and it is faster than Phelps swam at the US trials only a month ago (1:53.65).  Phelps himself was faster last night than he was in either of those races, and so it certainly cannot be said that Phelps did NOT produce a good swim in the final – he may have felt that he should be even faster, and certainly his 400m IM performance still suggests to me that something is not quite right, especially over the longer distances and in the second half of his races.  But Phelps didn't lose the race overall, as much as le Clos managed to elevate his level when it matter.  The "loss" by Phelps came in that final stroke.  

And that finishing “error” could well be put down to fatigue.  Even 5% more in Phelps' stroke length, and he finishes on the wall.  But as a swimmer fatigues, his stroke becomes shorter as his body position becomes lower in the water.  The result is that he's left with 1m to glide, rather than 50cm, for example, and that's worth 0.05s, at least.  Phelps held a fairly large lead over le Clos with 50m to go (0.68s), and the final 50m saw a stronger finishing le Clos get the final stroke right.  The result is a deserved gold medal for le Clos.

It was an unexpected gold, not only for the rest of the world, but dare I say it, for South Africa.  Chad le Clos is a name we'd all do well to remember, however, because he has the ability to go on from this and forge one of the great swimming careers.  He came into London carrying the "burden of potential", in the sense that everyone who has seen and followed his rise recognizes his future ability.  However, even he would not have predicted the gold medal in his strongest event.  He was quoted before the Games as promising to do his very best, but that a medal would be a bonus and the real target would be Rio in 2016.  My picks for London had le Clos as a "medal hopeful", rather than a "medal expectation", because I felt he needed the perfect day to win a medal.  He produced that, and then some, and the result was not just a medal, but the gold one.

So le Clos is ahead of his own curve now, and leaves London with that prized gold medal, and a personal best and African record that is about 2 seconds faster than anything he'd ever done before for the event.  And there may yet be more to come - the 200m individual medley is next, though he may not be the favorite, with both Lochte and Phelps in that race...but we've seen how that billing has played out once already.  Then there is the 4 x 100m medley relay, where South Africa's outside chance seems to have become a lot stronger, thanks to Cameron van den Burgh in the breaststroke, and now le Clos in the fly.  That happens later in the week. 

2) Phelps first equals and then beats the all-time medal record

Now, a word about Phelps.  The 200m butterfly produced a silver lining in more ways than one - first, he won silver in the event.  And secondly, while he'd have been disappointed, it took his all time tally to 18 medals, equal with Larissa Latynina.  

In the aftermath of the race, during the medal ceremony, Phelps showed tremendous class and true champion attitude in the manner in which he spoke with and engaged with le Clos.  It was, on a night of drama, perhaps the most rewarding sight, because he was magnanimous in defeat and honorable towards le Clos.  He earned a silver medal, but should also have earned enormous respect for that.  More than a record medal haul, it underlined Phelps' status for me.

If there was any disappointment (and there must have been), Phelps came out shortly after the medal ceremony and channeled it into the swim that would take him to sole position of the all-time medal list.  This time, it was a gold in the 4 x 200m freestyle, with Phelps producing the second fastest leg of the race (Yannick Agnel, the individual 200m champ, was fastest at 1:43.24 compared to Phelps' 1:44.05)

That took Phelps to 19.  15 are gold - this was already the record, the two bronze from Athens and the silver last night making up the collection.  Phelps has three events remaining - a leg in the 4 x 100m medley relay where it is very difficult to see the USA not winning gold, then the 200-IM where perhaps Lochte is favored, but Phelps should medal given the shorter length, and then the 100m butterfly, where he probably is favorite.  It's likely that Phelps will end his career on 22, with possibly 17 golds.  An amazing collection from the all-time greatest Olympic medal winner.  Cue debate about how 22 swimming medals compares to say, 5 rowing medals, where the multiple hauls are simply not possible. Regardless, Phelps is an undisputed Olympic legend.

3) Badminton farce as teams throw matches to avoid one another

Then a less than savoury story emerged from the Games yesterday, as eight badminton players were charged with "not using one's best efforts to win the match".  I didn't see the matches (following the Olympic Games is an Olympian task), but it was the talk of Twitter and obviously big news.  The story is summarized here, but basically, teams that had already qualified want to get themselves favourable draws and so they tried not to win the match.

There are some sports where this is easier than others.  Running and cycling, for example, lend themselves to slowing down just enough to lose.  Technical sports, it's not as simple, because when an elite player repeatedly duffs a serve or simple shot, even a non-discerning fan will spot it.  As they did - fans jeered, the match officials warned players and then disqualified them, only for the DQ to be overturned on appeal and the match continue. 

The players should simply be expelled from the Games.  No questions asked.  Obviously, the act of deliberately under-performing is the reason, and this is one of the most disgraceful things an athlete can do, surely?  Doping is terrible, but at least it's for the right reason!  There is also a part of me that thinks they should be expelled because from all reports, they didn't even play badly well (if that makes sense). If you're going to defraud the event and public, at least do so convincingly...but that's a bit tongue-in-cheek.  

Of course, proving it is very difficult - suspicion is obvious, proof is not!  The Badminton World Federation will be dealing with the matter.

4) Shiwen in the spotlight, still: My one-tweet summary below...

And then speaking of easy suspicion with difficult proof, China's Ye Shiwen remains a talking point in London.  She won the 200m IM last night, to go with that 400m IM title that created the controversy in the first place.

I was contacted by a few media yesterday, and will even be talking to CNN later today, and so I've been giving the story and speculation a great deal of thought.  If you missed my initial thoughts on the subject, you can find them here, and then also see what has been said about her from other sources.

It's such a polarizing debate, because the idea of "targeted testing" or suspicion based solely on whose flag an athlete competes under is so easily turned into sports' equivalent of racial profiling.  There is no doubt that Shiwen is MORE suspected and questioned because she is Chinese.  Is that right?  I'm ambivalent.  There is a reality that can't, and shouldn't be ignored, and that is that Chinese athletes have a history of doping.  I quoted figures the other day of 40 Chinese swimmers failing tests, three times more than the next nation.  Yesterday I received a tweet saying it's 57, a shade over twice the next nation's numbers.

Regardless, it's clear that Chinese athletes have "earned" the mistrust that accompanies them.  That's just a fact.  What is unfair is for that to be turned into an immediate accusation against every swimmer from China who does well.  For example, Shiwen is NOT actually based full-time in China - I believe she is in Brisbane a good deal of the time (if anyone can confirm this, let me know).  It doesn't mean there's no link to a state system in China, of course, but it does force us to reconsider the generalization and image we probably have of young swimmers doping in rural China where no drug tester can go, right?  So guilt by association is a bad idea - we'd all be guilty of many things this way, and with no recourse.

So let me wrap this discussion up (for now), with the following quick thoughts:

I think the main point that needs to be made is that in sport, history has taught us to be skeptical of anything that is remarkable.  It's a sad state of affairs, but we've all been made fools of before.

In that light, the performances of Shiwen compel people to ASK questions,  But I think it's very important to understand two things:

1. Asking is not the same as accusing.  We should be quick to ask, but slow to accuse, and before accusing, should seek facts and information.  Asking the question applies pressure, it helps to change behavior, it adds to scrutiny.  It's good.  The more transparency we can "force" onto the system, the better off the sport, and the only way to do so is to ask questions.  But the knee-jerk reaction to a young swimmer dominating in that fashion is to accuse and reach judgment, and that's not fair.
   
2. Recognize that she is not the only one from whom questions should be asked.  Any swimmer who wins an Olympic gold medal is already remarkable.  To do so with a world record is even more so, and to do so with huge improvements when so young is a final piece of what is a remarkable story.  But Shiwen is not unique, and so she, along with other swimmers, should be placed under the same scrutiny.  The reality is that an Olympic medal comes with fineprint of suspicion, and that includes le Clos, it includes Phelps, in includes everyone.
   
3. The scrutiny should take the form of doping controls - you cannot "convict" someone of doping just because they are performing well.  It's unfair and unnecessarily cynical.  What you can do is use performance to establish a targeted testing programme, because performance gives context to drug testing.  So all swimmers, but particularly those who produce "uncertain" performances, should be the target of testing, some perhaps more than others.

The reality is that only drug testing can answer the question.  The question is asked based on performance, but answered based on testing.  I was earlier asked to sum up my view in a single tweet, so here goes: I'd say "unfairly judged and accused, but worthy of question. If that's unfair, hey, welcome to elite sport"

Lots more action to come on day 5!  Stay tuned

Ross