Paralympics: Science vs Pistorius' claims

Over at The Science of Sport blog, there an excellent breakdown of Oscar Pistorius' critical comments about his defeat by Alan Oliveira in the men's T44 200m. Based on this analysis (by a South African blog, no less), it seems that Pistorius was using flawed logic when he made his claims about the unfairness of Oliveira's stride length.

"So, a simple count shows that Pistorius has longer strides than Alan, and they are consistently longer - on the bend, and in the straight, for those who are wondering. It's Oliveira who "can't compete with Oscar's stride length".  His faster speed, then, is the result of faster leg movement, because speed, as you will appreciate, is the result of stride length and stride rate."

It's an excellent and very detailed read, and worth looking at before diving into the debate that Pistorius has started.

London 2012: Enjoy Team GB's success while it lasts, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't

A young fan waves a Union Flag at the Olympic Women's 10k Swim in Hyde Park

The reaction to Great Britain's success in the London 2012 medal table has been euphoric. After the disappointment of Atlanta 1996 (one gold medal, 36^thoverall), top ten finishes in Sydney (11 golds, 10^th) and Athens (nine golds, 10^th), were seen as great successes, but the performances in Beijing (19 golds, fourth) and London (29 golds, third), have taken Team GB to new heights. The achievements of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and their team mates have been a joy to behold, but should not be allowed to spoil future Olympic accomplishments for the public either.

Host nation success is a well-documented phenomenon, and usually begins four years prior, as funding has already been improved in anticipation of the home games. This goes some way to explaining British success in Beijing, but the roots of that performance go back to the steady improvement after Atlanta, when the introduction of lottery funding coincided with national humiliation, and a recognition that the sporting landscape had changed since the end of the amateur era, requiring a more professional outlook from administrators. Factor in the increased funding that then arrived after London's successful bid in 2005, and the advantage of home crowds and conditions, and Team GB's performance is less surprising.

Britain has not seen this level of success since the days when far fewer nations took part. However, every team in every sport has its ceiling, Team GB cannot compete with China or the United States due to population size and funding, so third is the highest realistic place available. Without home conditions and support, it will be harder to find a competitive advantage. Meanwhile the chasing pack includes more populous nations, many of them emerging into the economic maturity necessary for Olympic success. As a fascinating article by Grantland's Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier explains:

“If a country is made up of subsistence farmers, it is not going to have much athletic infrastructure, government or private support, or even enough well-nourished citizens to excel in sports on the global stage... So, being rich in raw materials (people) and having the wealth to develop them are the main economic determinants of Olympic success ”

The chasing pack can, for these purposes, be divided into groups.

1. The sleeping giants: Brazil, host of the 2016 games, has one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world, and the number of Brazilians who will have access to sports infrastructure is only going to grow. Several nations, including India, are at different stages of this process.
2. The former powerhouses: those such as Russia who once dominated, covet that status again, and have the national will to ensure the prerequisite levels of funding are in place.
3. The specialists: nations that are unlikely to challenge across multiple sports, but which focus their attention on specific areas, allowing them to punch above their weight, for example Kenya in long distance running, or Bulgaria (highlighted by Cowen and Grier) in weight-lifting, wrestling and shooting, which have provided 32 of their 51 gold medals to date.

The first two groups will all have their eyes on Britain's third place, and the third group will be aiming for top ten finishes. Economic and population growth in the UK and other developed nations is slowing in relation to these challengers. Combined with the increased number of Olympic nations since the splintering of Eastern Europe, the end of the era of boycotts, and the rise in interest in countries with no real Olympic tradition, and the spread of medals is only going to become more diverse.

What does this mean for public perception of Team GB? Setting aside the argument that the medal table is somewhat artificial, as is the idea of an Olympic team, since what Chris Hoy does in the velodrome has no bearing on what Anthony Joshua does in the ring, London 2012 was probably the high water mark for the British team. The government has promised to maintain current levels of funding through 2016, but there are no long term guarantees.

The public reaction to Team GB is reminiscent of that towards the England rugby and cricket teams in 2003 and 2005. In the short term, both benefited from the increased attention, but when results declined, it meant greater scrutiny of their failings than before. Will there be a backlash when Britain inevitably drops down the medal table? Athletes performing to the best of their abilities may no longer be feted, but unfavourably compared to their 2012 predecessors. Falling out of nightclubs a sign of malaise, rather than well-deserved letting off of steam. The intense public disappointment at Australia's tenth place finish in London illustrates the dangers of raised expectations.

What is the solution? The British Olympic Association and other organising bodies must continue to seek new competitive advantages, but those are hard to find and harder to maintain, so perhaps the onus is instead on the media and the public to enjoy this success while it lasts, be nostalgic about it when it passes, but not to greet that passing with anger and disappointment.

So long as the Olympians of 2016, 2020 and beyond perform to a level commensurate with Britain's position in the world, 2012 need not become a millstone around their necks. Cherish this moment, and if Team GB returns to its positions from Athens and Sydney, those performances were once cause for celebration, and in an increasingly competitive Olympic world, would deserve to be celebrated again. London 2012 was a once in a lifetime moment for the British, not just as hosts, but also because of the performance of their team. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't let it become cause for future disappointment.

Highlights of 2009: Usain Bolt

In an era of international multi-channel TV, wall-to-wall press complete with pull-out supplements, up-to-the-minute internet news, video on demand, and all the other trappings of modern media coverage, sports events are covered in more detail than ever before. Whereas once a sporting event was a one-off, not repeated, now each event is broadcast and re-broadcast, analysed and discussed at length. When something special happens, it is seen by hundreds of millions around the world.

This means that it is now a rare sporting event that truly takes the breath away. Some are special, and live long in the memory, but few truly stun. Fans have seen seemingly unbreakable records broken, underdogs overcome the most improbable odds, and stars fall from grace and then return when all seemed lost. They know all the sporting narratives, and can see them coming a mile off.

Yet 2009 brought at least two moments that genuinely took the breath away, that made fans all around the world turn to each other to check that their eyes did not deceive them. Both moments came within days of each other, and belonged to one man, Usain Bolt.

It did not matter that the tall Jamaican had performed this feat in Beijing twelve months before, when he joyfully shattered world records in the 100 and 200 metres on his way to seemingly effortless wins. As the final of the 100 metres at this summer's World Championships in Berlin approached, most expected Bolt to win, and a world record seemed a distinct possibility. That he achieved these was not a surprise. It was the margin of the victory and the record, the nonchalance with which Bolt seemed to do it. Eleven hundredths of a second came off a record that had itself seemed unbelievable in China the year before. His rival, Tyson Gay, ran the third fastest time in history, yet had to settle for silver, and hardly a mention in the media.

Bolt making history again in the 100 metres final

Days later, with anticipation at an even higher level after his masterclass in the 100 metres, Bolt repeated the feat in the 200 metres, again taking eleven hundredths off his own record.

Bolt's remarkable rise has inevitably, and rightly, raised doubts. In this day and age, can one man really break those records without some form of cheating, whether it be steroids, blood doping, or something else that the testers have yet to discover? So far however, Bolt appears clean, and there has been no cause for suspicion, other than his success. Time should tell however, it usually does.

It is a sign of how remarkable his achievements are however, that he has single-handedly revived interest in athletics. With viewing figures down, the sport's credibility damaged by a string of scandals, the IAAF have been plotting ways to rejuvenate the sport with shorter-format events inspired by the likes of Twenty20 cricket and other innovations. Whilst these will still go ahead, Bolt has proven that the biggest draw to any sport is drama and spectacle, and so long as he keeps winning titles in his trademark laid-back style, the fans will keep coming back, if only to see just how fast he can go.