Tour 2009: Into the Mountains

The Pyrenees await the peloton: First mountain stage preview

The first week of the 2009 Tour has hardly been 'normal', with strong cross-winds, a team-time trial and intriguing team dynamics and the return of Lance Armstrong to the Tour, but tomorrow's first mountain finish represents one of perhaps three or four key moments in determining where the 2009 yellow jersey will ultimately end up.

The stage is a 224km haul from Barcelona into Andorra, and it finishes on the HC (hors categorie) climb of Arcalis. That climb is preceded by a Category 1 climb of the Col de Serra Seca, and two Cat 3 climbs. It's pretty much an uphill stage from start to finish, with the final 70km being a gradual pull to the base of Arcalis, and then the climb.

The stage profile is shown below, and immediately below that, a zoomed in version of the final 10.6 km climb at an average gradient of 7.1%.

A decisive day in the race?

We've become accustomed to these first mountain days being quite decisive in the overall bearing of the race. During the post-Indurain years, it was almost expected that the first day in the mountains, especially when the finish line was atop an HC climb, would be a battle between the "heads of state" (to borrow a term from Paul Sherwen) that would sort out the podium finishers from the "better luck next year" riders.

Whether or not this year will prove decisive is not so sure. I doubt it. Someone pointed out on a recent post that Astana may well have aspirations of taking all three podium places in this year's Tour, and with 4 riders in the top 5, that is a very realistic possibility, especially given how rivals have already lost time on them in week one (Evans and Sastre in particular).

An Astana tempo-train to the summit?

Given their strength, it's possible that Arcalis becomes a hard team ride simply to shed all other challengers and get these four to the top of the climb. If this is the case, then the scenario may be that Astana hits the front on the Cat 1 climb, stays there until the climb of Arcalis and then sets a fast enough tempo to prevent attacks from threats and get to the summit with Astana leap-frogging Cancellara to occupy the top four positions. I sincerely hope this isn't the case, because the Tour is already taking on quite a "narrow" focus - as I said the other day, the team time-trial made it increasingly difficult to see anyone other than an Astana rider winning this. So if Astana hold positions 1 through 4 by the weekend, then I fear it will become a much more controlled race to the finish.

The last few years, post-US Postal/Discovery's dominance, one of the highlights of the Tour has been the unpredictability, the frequency of attacks and the changes in overall leadership. Not withstanding the usual drug busts, the Tour has been entertaining to watch, and this year is just threatening to dampen that "randomness" slightly.

Because of the nature of that climb, as shown above, most damage is likely to happen at the bottom, where the first four kilometers are easily the steepest. So the action will be swift, either riders will fall off the pace quickly, or we'll see a relatively large group finishing together.

Fragmented attacks and aggressive racing?

Another possible scenario is that those riders who have lost time in the first week make their claims for the podium by instigating attacks at the bottom. In particular, the Schleck brothers, Carlos Sastre and Cadel Evans must be aware that this is one of perhaps three or four chances they will have to reclaim lost ground. Mitigating against this happening are that the second last day up Mont Ventoux will make many riders cautious, because most will realise that the Tour won't be won in the first mountain stage, but it can be lost. So I think many are likely to adopt a conservative approach, and that's why the scenario of Astana driving the pace is more likely than it would normally be.

It's really wide-open, but come tomorrow evening, it might have closed up completely (if Astana suddenly find themselves in the top 4 places and rivals have lost more time), or it might remain open a little while longer. I'm hoping for vicious attacks, attrition and high drama, and hopefully Alberto Contador is not under team instructions to hold anything back. I have a feeling he might be instructed to follow, but not initiate attacks himself. We shall see...part of the intrigue of the mountains, I guess.

There is also the expected breakaway, which is likely to come from someone with aspirations of winning the King of the Mountains title, and who wants to bag as many points as possible on the earlier climbs before being challenged. I can't see this succeeding, though it usually provides good theatre on the final climb of the day. Any bets Sylvain Chavanel is one of these riders...?

Power output evaluation - what does it take to climb with the pros?

From a scientific point of view, the mountains also provide great discussion, because it's here that power output stats become most meaningful, and the true physiological capacity is measurable! If you want to compare yourself to the Tour riders, the mountains is the place to do it!

I have some really interesting historical statistics and records of climbing times, power outputs and performance comparisons from the Tour over the years. But, this is a three-week race, and I have to pace myself, so I'll post on those next week, once we're in the mountains!

For now, though, some really fascinating data, and some great insight on them from someone who knows a fair bit can be found at the TrainingPeaks website, and also at VeloNews.

Trainingpeaks is a company based in Boulder, Colorado, and who I had the pleasure of visiting a few years ago. They've produced great software for coaching and monitoring training, logging heart rate, power output, running speed...you name it. You can see it in action through the measurement of two riders on the Saxo Bank team. It really is great for those who love the numbers and quantifying performance (and most cyclists do!). If you want to see the raw data, you have to have their software, but there is a free trial that you can download from their site. It's worth downloading just to play around with the software and see what it can do (you may well find it is worth investing in), but it also gives you a chance to view the Tour through the eyes of a Pro-Team exercise physiologist, since this is exactly what they work with in the teams.

Also on that page is a summary of the riders' stats and power outputs during the Tour so far. You might be interested to learn, for example, that on Stage 3, where the group was split and Contador lost time on Armstrong, the average power output of a rider finishing in the main pack was 188W, and that for a five-minute period, that rider (Nicki Sorensen) averaged 410W.

It's really very interesting analysis - I'm sure that over the coming mountain days, it will become even more intriguing.

Related to that is this commentary by Dirk Friel on VeloNews. Dirk is a co-founder of TrainingPeaks, and a former pro cyclist whose father, Joe Friel, authored the Cyclist's Training Bible (a book I'm sure many have read). It's a really good commentary on the race, also worth following in the coming days.

But of course, if you do visit those sites, don't forget to come back here for recaps and insights, and to see how accurate my crystal ball was on this occassion! And for those power output stats from Tours past!

Enjoy Arcalis!

Ross

Usain Bolt 19.59s

Usain Bolt blasts to 19.59s in the rain in Lausanne

I keep waiting for Usain Bolt's star to lose some of its lustre, for a race where he looks a little sluggish, where he doesn't look like a completely different athlete to his rivals. And it doesn't seem to be coming any time soon...

Last night, Bolt was due to run in the 200m in Lausanne, and much hype surrounded the race. So you can imagine that when the heavens opened and it poured with rain before and during the meeting, people's expectations were dampened somewhat.

The men's 100m was won in 10.07s - a relatively slow time. The women's 100m was taken in 11.03 - good, but not spectacular. It was not a fast night for sprinting, and quality athletes all seemed down by a couple of percent on their normal times. And when the wind picked up, Bolt was faced with a headwind, it would have been quite acceptable to run anything around 20 seconds.

But Bolt unleashed a 19.59s time, which is absolutely extra-ordinary, running into a headwind of 0.9m/s in wet conditions. His margin of victory was 0.82 seconds, over LaShawn Merrit, the Olympic 400m champion, with other Olympic finallists (medallists among them) trailing even further behind.

You can watch the race here, in case you missed it:



The gap to second is an amazing 4.2%, which is the equivalent of first and second being separated by almost 5 seconds in an 800m race! Of course, that never happens because of pacing and race strategy, but it's an incredible margin of victory over a decent quality field.

About a month ago, Tyson Gay laid down his marker when he ran 19.58 seconds in New York. That still stands as the fastest time in the world this year, and so on paper, anyway, Gay and Bolt have a great duel lined up in Berlin later this year.

But on the track, and in the rain, Bolt more than matched Gay's performance. There seems little that Bolt cannot do, barring injury, and on the right day, his own world record of 19.30s seems fragile. Considering that only a year ago the 19.32s of Michael Johnson was the most "unbreakable record" in track, Bolt has certainly moved the sport forward a few generations.

Ross

Late edits & additional thoughts:

I came across this discussion forum on LetsRun, which starts out as a comment on Bolt's 19.59s and then rapidly spirals into a discussion on Bolt's status as either drug-free or doped. This is an inevitable discussion in the sport, sadly, just as it is for cycling, which is our current focus here on The Science of Sport with the Tour de France in full swing.

I say "inevitable", because history has shown that success in sprinting is linked to doping - once bitten, twice shy, so to speak. And the fact that since about 1988, sprinters have been basically been the pin-up boys of doping (take a bow, Ben Johnson) means that Bolt will always be stepping into the same tainted spotlight as those whose place he is now taking.

I must confess I don't know what to make of the debate. If you go through the arguments in the discussion thread, you'll see a number of approaches, some logical, some a little leaner on thought. In cycling, and particularly with Lance Armstrong, so much (admittedly circumstantial) evidence exists that the situation should be evaluated quite differently from how one has to evaluate an athlete like Bolt (though he might, on the basis of this thread, garner a fair amount of this in years to come).

People will invariably spring to the defence of cycling as the only sport that has actually looked at itself closely (this is not really true - cycling wished it could bury its head in the sand, and it was the anti-doping bodies that forced cycling's ugly side to the surface). Perhaps the same spotlight on track would produce the same festering wounds, who knows?

But one argument I can't subscribe to is that if Bolt and Armstrong are both dominant over their rivals, then either both are doping, or neither is. That doesn't work for me, because it looks at performance in two completely different sports in complete isolation, and it doesn't quantify the dominance to begin with. It also ignores the context of cycling in the 90s and 2000s, and the reams of other evidence that have been produced by credible journalists who cover cycling. Are athletics journalists just not as curious (or malicious, depending on your opinion of them) as those who write about cycling? Seems unlikely to me. Finally, it ignores the fact that Bolt, even as a junior, had extra-ordinary talent.

Bolt the junior was so talented that many are now saying "told you so", and they are obviously most vocal in his defence. I actually did a post on Bolt after Beijing, detailing his junior times, and they are quite spectacular. 20.13s at the age of 17 is one such example.

I've often been of the opinion that a great deal of insight can be gained on an athlete's status by looking at their junior performances, and certainly Bolt's did suggest something special. If that junior talent was unaided by doping, then the senior performances may also be. That is the thinking anyway...I realize that projecting senior times based on junior success is a hazardous exercise and it's easy to adopt a "told you so" view now that he's delivered.

That said, I still don't have a definite opinion on Bolt. My gut reaction is that Bolt is so different from the likes of Johnson, Mitchell and Christie, who were big, powerful runners, that I feel as though his speed comes from something other than muscle and brute power, and hence might be achieved without doping. I recall that post-Beijing, I did a post on him suggesting this, and that his advantage may lie in what seems to my naked eye as exceptional elasticity and a neurological difference. He simply looks different at top speed, and that's as unscientific as evidence comes, but I think it's important. Then again, Carl Lewis also looked different, and he's hardly squeaky clean...

Just to add a final thought or two - a lot of people are pointing at the number of tests as a reason athletes are clean. In this day and age, this is completely irrelevant. Marion Jones never tested positive, neither have many other athletes who are known drug cheats. So the number of negative tests is no longer a basis of defence, sadly. It may be that the athlete is clean, but this is not the hook to hang your argument on in a world of designer drugs and undetectable substances or methods!

And then finally, you'll have a laugh at how some people invoke jealousy and a spirit of patriotism as a defence for Bolt. You'll see on the final page of the discussion, one poster is described as an "impostor" for daring to speculate on the Jamaican system. The poster, "X-fit", actually makes some great points, and it's one of the better comments I've read. But rather than discuss the merits (or flaws) of his arguments, the easiest defence is to attack his nationality, label him an impostor and then say that his opinions are down to "jealousy" or being a sore-loser! It seems a fairly common defence, because in that post I did on Bolt after Beijing 2008, the same happened - a lot of very angry people accused me of being "pro-American" and jealous of Jamaica's great performances in Beijing! (and this despite the fact that I was suggesting he was not doped!)

So make up your own mind, and let the debate continue! What I will say, in agreement with X-Fit is that if he is caught, well, athletics would be in free-fall!

Ross

Tour de France 2009: Team TT

Cancellara hangs onto the Maillot Jaune...by a whisker

Fabian Cancellara has survived in yellow for at least another day. But only just. After yesterday's dramatic split that saw Lance Armstrong gain time on all the other GC contenders, today's team time-trial was always going to be about whether Astana had the firepower to overhaul the starting deficit of 40 seconds, which would see Armstrong, on his comeback to the sport, start stage 5 wearing the yellow jersey.

And Astana did possess the firepower - exactly. For by the time the 39.5km had been completed in Montpellier, Astana crossed the line as stage victors, EXACTLY 40 seconds ahead of Saxo Bank, with Garmin Slipstream separating the two, 18 seconds down on Astana.

Those 40 seconds meant that deciding who got yellow went down to fractions of a second, and it was Fabian Cancellara who hung on, denying Armstrong a return to yellow in the comeback Tour.

There was a moment, on the open road, when Armstrong was in "virtual yellow", when Astana having actually gained a lead of 41 seconds over Saxo Bank, and it was only in the final 9km that Saxo Bank and Cancellara were able to find that half-second that sees him in the maillot jaune tomorrow.

Analysing pacing of the team time-trial

It's always interesting (especially for me with my research background on pacing) to examine how time-trials are paced. Given the very tiny margins between victory and defeat (shown by the tiny gap that kept Cancellara in yellow today, for example), errors in pacing strategy can have huge implications. This is particularly true in a team time-trial, because pacing must take into account the weaker riders' abilities. If the early pace is carried by stronger riders, then weaker riders will experience a much more dramatic slow down in the second half. The general principle in pacing is that whatever you gain by starting too fast is generally paid back in duplicate (at least) in the second half of the trial!

For example, Caisse d'Epargne shot out of the start gates today and have the fastest time at Checkpoint 1, by 7 seconds. By Checkpoint 2, they're down to 5th, and by the finish, down in 7th place, having lost over a minute to teams over the final half of the course.

So below is a basic anaylsis of the pacing strategy adopted by Astana and Saxo Bank in the time-trial today. Remember the course profile, shown below - tough first half, with a lot of uphill sections, and then a tricky second half with descending and tight turns. The strong winds, narrow roads and terrain made this TTT one of the more attritional in recent years - just ask Boygues Telecom who at one stage had four men off the road in a grass field.

Below is a graph comparing the speeds achieved by Astana (in blue) to those of Saxo-Bank (in yellow since they had Cancellara) over the four intermediate splits. In an ideal world, we'd be able to plot power output, not speed, to take into account the variable terrain and wind, but this is mostly for comparison between the two teams anyway, so it's passable. I've indicated on the graph the time difference between Astana and Saxo Bank for each interval, and at the bottom, in black, is the difference between Armstrong and Cancellara on the road, given that Cancellara started the day with a 40 sec lead on Armstrong.

What probably jumps out right away is that the eventual difference between Astana and Saxo Bank was created in the first half of the race. To be precise, Astana beat Saxo Bank by exactly 40 seconds, and 38 of those came in the first half. There was, as I mentioned above, a point at Checkpoint 3, where Cancellara had lost the yellow jersey by one second.

However, as you'll see on the graph, Saxo Bank did the fourth interval 1 second faster than Astana, and it was this 1 second, in the final 9km of the trial, that sees the Swiss champion in yellow for tomorrow's stage. It's difficult to fault the pacing strategy of either team, however. Neither of them "blew it" to the same extent that Caisse d'Epargne did in the second half.

Astana's big move came between 10 and 20km - it was here that they did all the damage, and actually won the stage. Garmin-Slipstream, who finished second on the stage, did this interval in 13 min 8 seconds, Astana did it in 12 min 45 seconds, 23 seconds faster.

So Astana were considerably faster than anyone else in this second inverval on the route, and their stage win was ultimately the result of this effort. Whether this was because the course was particularly challenging here, or the team had decided that this was the moment to turn the intensity up a gear or two, I don't know. If you refer back to the route profile, you'll see that the second interval from 10 to 20km was certainly the most difficult part of the route. The average speeds shown in the graph above confirm this - stage 2 was considerably slower.

Tour momentum builds for the mountains

In any event, the result means that Cancellara can sleep with the yellow jersey under his pillow for at least another night. Given that the next two days look good for sprinters, that Mark Cavendish and his team are hungry for more wins, and that other teams who haven't had a look in on a sprint finish will be keen to do so before the mountains, I don't see breaks being successful.

It therefore seems likely that Friday's first mountains will be ushered in with Cancellara in yellow, and then it will be a battle to see who from Astana emerges. It's becoming increasingly difficult to see anyone other than an Astana rider winning. Today, Cadel Evans lost 2:35 to Contador and Armstrong, and Carlos Sastre 1:37, making their lives very difficult. Perhaps the Schleck brothers have a shot, though I can't see them doing enough in the climbs to make up for what should be time lost in the individual time-trial.

Astana team leadership - Armstrong in yellow equals would have meant more problems for Contador

The real talking point, as many have thought it would be, is how Astana work out team leadership. One man who might be a little relieved that Astana didn't find another half a second today is Alberto Contador. The prospect of hitting the mountains with his supposed "domestique" Lance Armstrong wearing yellow would hardly have done him much good.

The fact that Armstrong and two team-mates were at the front driving the pace on in yesterday's split sent a pretty strong message that any promised support for Contador is entirely conditional, and only if Contador is winning the race clearly will he be able to rely on Armstrong's support.

Had Armstrong been in yellow, and if the race were able to reach the first big mountain stage on Friday with that situation, then the Astana team meetings would be very interesting indeed. Would they have allowed Contador to attack the yellow jersey in his own team? It's one thing to attack when you have a team-mate ahead of you in the overall race, quite another when he is wearing the race leader's jersey. Contador might therefore be a little relieved that this is not the case.

Certainly, quotes by Contador yesterday do not suggest a rider at ease within his own team. He was quoted after yesterday's stage as saying "I don't want to express an opinion on the tactics of the team. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions".

Your conclusions are welcome!

Next few days

Nothing is predictable in the Tour, as we saw yesterday, but the 'script' for the next few days calls for early break-aways, chasing pelotons, and sprint finishes, which should not be too eventful in the grand scheme of the race. The next big rendezvous is in Andorra on Friday, the first mountain top finish of the race, and time-permitting, I'll do a post ahead of that looking at the power outputs of Tour riders on those climbs.

Enjoy the sprint finishes!
Ross

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