Working on your bike leg

The bike leg of any triathlon is really important, largely because it is disproportionally long and so much can happen during the time you're riding. This is perhaps more so in IM and IM 70.3 distance races, and even though the saying goes "ride for show, run for dough", if your bike leg is weak it will be shown up on the bike and carry-over to the run.

There's all kind of things you can do to improve your bike leg, from getting a newer bike to simply training more, but I'm going to focus on just a couple of things I've found to be valuable in preparing athletes for IM races (in particular), which kind of seem opposite to each other but actually work in harmony on race day. Let me explain some more.

In a long bike leg, 90km to 180km, you're going to get tired and pedaling will just feel harder…like you're riding through sand. Even though you might be pushing the same / similar power it doesn't feel like it. You've run out of endurance, so to speak. Something to help your whole bike performance - not just in this situation - is including big-gear riding in training. And quite a bit of it. The intent is to develop your muscular strength and endurance, your neural familiarity with this type of effort, and train your ability to keep pushing the gear when you're legs are fatiguing.

This strength endurance work can be included in a variety of ways, but with the common element of pedaling at about 60-70 rpm, or about 20-25 rpm less than you would naturally choose - we're not training you to be a big gear rider or change your natural cadence.

As with adding any new / different stress to your training, you should build into it gradually. Start with 2-4 x 5 min efforts with 2-3 min easy between. Your target effort is about FTP wattage, or the kind of effort you'd ride in an Olympic distance triathlon. They key is the muscle tension you are developing, not the anaerobic effect - if you're breathing hard then you're not quite doing it right. It will burn your legs more than your heart and lungs. You can do these on flat, uphill or on an indoor trainer…aim for the same effort on the pedals.

Once you're used to 5 min efforts, extend them out to 10-15-20 min up to total of about 30-45 min per session, just once a week at this stage. For variation, do some of the reps standing up…this will burn your quads!! Big gear work can also be included into your long ride, alternating intervals of normal gear/cadence with big gear work, ultimately building up to intervals as long as 60min, completing 4 of these in a long ride - two at normal cadence, two at big gear. The difference with big gear efforts in your long ride is to do them a IM (or slightly above) effort - a power meter is ideal for measuring this effort.

Including big gear work throughout your IM build phase can pay big dividends in the last 40km of the bike leg, however having this new found strength on the bike is not necessarily a strength in itself. It is simply developing an aspect of fitness you will call upon late in the bike leg.

The second aspect of training to help bike performance is learning to "soft pedal" as you ride, which is somewhat contrary to developing big gear strength, but the best thing about having a performance strength is not necessarily using it. In doing an IM bike leg your goal is to expend a minimum amount of effort for the maximum reward / speed, which you can do by "soft pedaling" and barely touching upon the bike strength you've built up.

Saying "soft pedal" needs a very careful definition, which is a subtle change in the way you ride and "how" you generate power through your pedals. It is best illustrated on a power quadrant analysis, where the aim is to shift the power spread from Q I and Q II towards Q III and Q IV. The feel of this just as "soft pedaling"  implies - being softer on the pedals, by a small and subtle amount. So rather than "pushing" during the pedal stroke, you would ease off just a fraction, and perhaps even changing down a gear at times. Your power would barely change, but your perceived effort would. As I said, it is subtle and represents a variation in the way you ride…having a smoother pedal stroke.

Learning to soft pedal takes practice, especially during long rides where your effort is most like an IM bike leg. During shorter, harder rides you do need to pedal hard - including during any big gear work - so it is during other gentler, steady-state efforts where practicing soft pedaling is best done. Having a power meter helps a lot, especially for post-ride quadrant analysis, but even without a power meter the feeling of soft pedaling is what you are after. To an extent you are aiming to protect your bike strength - to not use it - even though you eventually will, where your big gear work will come to the fore.

These two aspects of training seem at odds with each other, but are actually complementary. Using big gear work builds your bike strength, especially for late in the bike leg, and soft pedaling protects you from having to use that bike strength until as late as possible. If you get it right - pacing is crucial - you'll get off the bike with fresher legs and ready to run to your potential.

Running holiday...holiday running

Holidays are great for all kinds of reasons. For the places you go, the people you hang out with, the R&R and so much more. Holidays are also great for running, and running is great for holidays. Some holidays are even based on running, whether it's travelling to do an event or going away for a training camp…running is front-centre of the experience.

For me, I love running while holidaying for the pleasure it brings and the things I can see on the run. Perhaps my most memorable holiday run was in Paris whereupon leaving the hostel set out in the early morning, I set out on a route that took me down to the Seine river, along to Eiffel tower, across to Place de la Concorde and the forecourt of the Louvre museum, then up the Champs Elysees to Arc de Triomphe before heading back to the hostel, all in about a 55 min run. Not only did I see many of the main sights of Paris, but saw the city come to life…the street sweepers, delivery vans, cafes setting up and more. It was memory I've held and savoured to this day.

Then there were some fabulous runs in New Zealand, heading out along trails, around lakes, into some hills and round towns, just checking out the scene and hoping I don't get lost (or worse…). And don't forget running along the endless beach on Fraser Island…being chased by a wasp…or running the road to Uluru, or circling Cradle Mountain in Tasmania. Running on holidays can take you places you might not go if you were walking - a lot quicker - and starts the day off on the right foot. If you've done a run and seen things before breakfast, you've got the rest of the day to just take in the peace and serenity of being on holiday.

The challenge for a keen runner while on holiday is the fine line between running for enjoyment while away against the temptation to turn it into a "training camp", of sorts, and smash out some great sessions to give your running fitness a boost. The problem with this is the effect it may have on your actual holiday…being too tired to really enjoy the surroundings and the people you're with. Running up a great mountain trail is fantastic, but hiking up it with others and appreciating the view might be a better…as long as you're not too tired to do so. Striking a compromise between great running and great holidaying can take some practice!!

The middle ground I've found is to see holidays as a break from focused training, as such, and enjoy the holiday for what it is…and enjoy the simple pleasures of running in new and stimulating environments. That is, enjoying holiday running. The exception is, of course, if you're taking a running holiday in which case, run hard!!

A universal training session

Amongst the training libraries of many athletes and coaches you'll find a range of "go to" sessions which are the ones they most often do, for all kinds of reasons. Some will be complex and some will be simple, and some in between, but the bottom line is they work for that person/people.

One of my "go to" sessions is simple, 1 min 'on' / 1 min 'off' repeated a certain number of times, but the beauty is in the universal way a simple session like this can be used, at any time in training year and with almost any level / fitness of athlete. The key to it is the emphasis of the 'on' and 'off' intervals and the number of reps. It could equally be described as "timed fartlek"…as opposed to a "free form fartlek" where you use things like trees, posts, and other landmarks as the delimeters, but the effect is similar. I'll explain this further with some examples, using running as the sport.

The pre-requisite for this session is having sufficient fitness to be able to consider doing a session beyond just easy running, something that will take a new runner some time to build up to. Once you have, the sky is the limit in using this session.

The first example in using this session is for a runner who is new to any form of interval type training, and are more familiar with just easy paced running. For this runner using their watch to time out 1 min at a "faster" pace, then 1 min at a "slower" pace introduces them to simply running at different speeds. They could do it for a certain number of reps, around a particular course to set a duration for the session, much like a race is a defined length.

The key detail is the "faster" and "slower" pace, which is expressed that way to help the runner develop a feel for their own ability, and pacing during a session. For new runners it is part of experience to know what it feels like to run faster, and to align that with their ability to maintain a pace for duration…this session introduces them to that which is why it is important not to set any specific pace target and let them work it out themselves.

This approach can also be used for a runner returning from a break to get back into interval training in a gradual way rather than aiming for specific targets before their fitness is at that level.

Moving on to a more experienced runner, the session can be used for speed development with high emphasis on the 'on' interval and using the 'off' interval for very easy recovery. In this way, there is a large discrepancy between the 'on' and 'off', and keeping it time limited means you also control how much recovery the runner gets rather than leaving it open-ended, eg, 200m recovery, by contrast, can take minutes if they slowly walk it.

A further variation is to make it a threshold/tempo session where there is only small variation between the 'on' and 'off', so that the emphasis is on the overall duration of session rather than the individual reps. For example, 10 x 1 min on / 1 min off, becomes a 20 min tempo session featuring surges for each 'on' minute, but still maintaining a high pace during the 'off' minute. In that case, they key is not slowing down too much in the 'off' interval…if you execute it will you will find the total distance covered in the 20min will only be slightly less than if you did a 20 min effort.

A beauty of using the session in a tempo style is that the runner can choose the effort / pace depending on how they feel that day, and it's a good way to break up a 20 min effort if you're a little unsure of your capability to do 20 min straight…the 'on' and 'off' allow you to build the effort to achieve a productive session rather than potentially abandoning it if you feel ordinary from the start.

A final example for this session is during a taper, where you can use it to keep some intensity in training without the session being too stressful in the lead-up to an event. In this scenario, the 'on' could be at goal pace, and the 'off' at an easier pace, which helps the runner be in tune with how they want to run in the upcoming race. The duration could be something like 10-20 min total (ie, 5-10 reps), just enough for them to feel a little effort but short enough not to fatigue them.

So the key points of the session are the use of individual feel for the 'on' and 'off' intervals, and how the variance in pace between those intervals can change the nature of session. While I've based this on a 1 min base, you can use all kinds of variations to the length of the 'on' and 'off' intervals - a favourite is 2 min 'on', 1 min 'off', which has been a favourite amongst Kenyans for many years.

This is just one session that I use, where the key point is how you can use and control the 'on' and 'off' intervals to vary the nature of the session depending on the season, athlete ability, how they are feeling on a particular day and more. Being flexible is crucial to getting the most from any session, and choosing a session which allows this - while still being aligned to the training objective - helps piece together a great training program.

Terenzo Bozzone running form analysis

Terenzo Bozzone graced the Australian shores for a rare race appearance at the Shepparton IM 70.3 race, and showed the class act he is in swim, bike and run with a convincing victory over a quality field of Australian contenders. Bozzone has real pedigree, evidenced by multiple IM 70.3 victories in USA and around the world, including a World Championship title a few years back. His progress came to a halt 12 months ago, however, undergoing Achilles surgery...and having had 3 Achilles operations myself can say that his comeback has been fantastic, seemingly reaching top form late in the US season.

If he does have an “Achilles heel”, so to speak, it is in IM races where he hasn’t quite put together a race that reflects his capabilities over IM 70.3 distance. Often it has been in the run leg where the IM race has got away from him, a leg where he is arguably at his best over the half distance. There could be all range of reasons for this fade, but regardless, I took some good footage of him running at Shepparton which provides great material for analysis of his running form...and believe me, he was going very fast in the first 2 (of 3) run laps, eventually running 1:12 on an accurate course.

This video was taken at the start of the 3rd lap, so at the 14km+ mark, with a clear and safe lead. The following are some comments / observations of what I see, using my experience in running form analysis:

• He is very smooth, with little vertical movement.
• His arm swing is compact and relaxed.
• His core stability is strong, with little non-linear movement or body rotation.
• Further to that point, his hip stability is also very good, with minimal hip drop upon landing. However, he does twist his hips a little.
• He torso is nicely vertical...although I’ll touch on this again in a moment.
• He is mid/flat-foot runner, and to see him in real-time speed, is quite light on his feet.

So those are all the good things about his form. Now to be really harsh and picky, there’s a couple things I’d point out that might be coming back to bite him in an IM run leg:

• His foot landing is a little in front of him, meaning he is “behind” his stride rather than on top of it...this would really noticeable if you put him alongside the likes of Cam Brown, Crowie, etc. Refer to my article post IM Melbourne analysing the run form of the top-10 men.
• In conjunction with this, his hips are slightly back and “in a bucket” to a minor extent. The effect of these two things is that when he fatigues this will be exaggerated and he’ll sit back even more rather than being forwards and on top of his stride, which is momentum that is critical to maintaining form and speed in the depths of fatigue such as in an IM.
• Also, his slight hip twist would become more pronounced.

What I’m talking about is very subtle, but at that level it’s things like this that make the difference, even to a Formula 1 engine like Bozzone.

So what would I do if I was his coach...work on getting his weight over his stride via combination of drills, run form practice and incorporating it into his default form. The effect would be to introduce an ever so slight forwards lean, from the ankles (rather than from hips) and he would roll along, over the ground using momentum to his benefit.

Terenzo Bozzone is a world class athlete, proven by results over recent years, in particular IM 70.3 format, and he obviously has the calibre to compete over IM...but has not quite cracked it so far. Perhaps a little tweak to his running form might help in that quest, to see him compete with the best guys over IM. These were just my thoughts on that aspect...I wish him all the best.

One of those days

Another little piece for www.newbreedrunning.com.au

It was one of those days, you know, when you wake up and are not sure which side of the bed to get out on…the good side or the 'other' side...which reflects the uncertainty about how the day might unfold. Nonetheless, you get up and lace up your shoes in preparation for the run session you've got planned. Part of your mind is suggesting to can it and either not start or just take it easy, competing with the other part that says just get out and get started. So you do.

As you expect, the first km feels awful…tired, dead and heavy. Urgh!!! But you haven't gone far enough for it to 'count' as a session, so you keep going. As you do something happens. Whether it was stopping at the traffic lights to cross, or passing over some imaginary line, or even that you've just woken up, you're not sure what it is. But things start feeling better.

Your stiff joints loosen up. Your breathing levels out. Your stride finds a groove. Your rhythm becomes smoother. Things just seem to click into gear and your body warms up. Your running actually starts feeling good, much to your surprise, and you start thinking about doing a proper session of fartlek, or tempo, or intervals…there's a range of options.

As you run on you find yourself losing track of how long you've run for, or how fast you're going, until you realise how hard you are breathing - this is equating to a good, hard session, and it feels effortless. Why don't race days feel like this? You go on further, relishing your fitness and endurance to be able to do so, taking all the little side tracks you usually only selectively go down. It's surreal to be feeling so good.

Eventually you look at your watch with surprise to see how long and how swiftly you've run, not to mention how much you're sweating. You could continue on forever, but decide to head home, still skipping over the ground albeit with some fatigue creeping into your legs…the adrenalin is keeping you going.

Arriving back at your front gate and you come to stop, euphoric about how good the run was and how surprising it was considering the way it started. These are the times you love being a runner. It was just one of those days.

Minimalist running in the real world

Minimalist running has been a popular topic for a few years, with growing awareness and opinion about it, and why you should take the step (pardon the pun) down this path. This period of time has been accompanied by wide ranging debate and opinion, and backed up by both the birth of new running shoes companies and a change in direction by others. Some of this is balanced and well meant, but some information and resources related to minimalist running borders on evangelism.

With this passage of time, combined with my own experience, plus what I've seen in others, my own thinking around minimalist running has evolved to what is perhaps a more real world perspective. Here is some of what I come to realise and understand myself.

Minimalist running is a description covering everything from barefoot and sandals to light-weight training shoes. Rather than consider it in such absolute terms, minimalist running in the real world means a range of things, starting with just being aware of what you're putting on your feet and the effect it is having on your legs, body and running posture/form. Simply opening your mind to the range of footwear options, and importantly, what is most suitable for you, is the start of the journey to minimalist running.

Remember that running shoes are simply a tool to help with running, and are not a solution unto themselves. When you run they are part of you so you need to consider them in the full picture of your running and that they may influence your running form. In my opinion, shoes that "change the way you run" are getting into dangerous injury risk territory. Remember, they are a tool and should not control or dictate you and/or the way you run.

Further, minimalist running should be measured in relative terms compared to what you're currently wearing. So any shoe that is "less" of a shoe than you currently wear is a minimalist shoe for you. The very big thing here is the adaptability of your legs and body to a (relatively) minimalist shoe, in particular you calves and achilles. For all the benefits that minimalism offers (some of which I'll get to below), the main fault is in how you make the switch to implement it, not to mention the reasons why you might choose to. This is where my own experience is very relevant.

Being open minded to what (relatively) minimalist shoes offered, I got a pair. They were fairly conservative, but importantly, went from about a 10-12mm heel-toe drop to about 4-8mm drop, which I went on to use for my daily running. It took a few weeks, even months, but I started to notice some stiff and sore spots in my calves and heels, which might have been due to many things, but in switching back to my comfy 10-12mm drop shoes the issues (eventually) went away. I feel it was the repeated stress that a slightly lower heel-toe drop shoe put on my calves, achilles and plantar fasciitis that my old legs couldn't adapt to. Or more specifically, it was something I wasn't prepared to go back to basics and take the time to adapt to…which would have taken months and months. It was a powerful and pertinent lesson.

In looking more at why you might want to switch to minimalist running, you need to be very careful and very honest with yourself. Being sucked in by shoe company marketing is not a good reason to switch, neither is  being trendy and keeping up with "the Joneses". Also, if your running is not 'broken', then don't try to fix it with minimalist shoes. Period.

There are, however, times when considering changing shoes to a more minimalist style can make sense, but it needs to be considered as part of a big picture solution, not just as a band-aid type patch. Such a change requires some dedication, commitment and patience since there a number of things you need to consider, things like:

• Your readiness to take a step back before taking a step forwards,
• The fitness and durability of your running infrastructure (aka body) to cope with the change,
• Any injury issue you might have, and the impact of that on running let alone a change like minimalist shoes,
• Your running form, independent of shoes (remember, they are just a tool, not a solution). 

Changing to minimalist shoes can be a viable - and possibly even a suitable - option for people who do need to change something to try overcoming a prolonged issue, usually injury related. So as mentioned, it would be part of an overall review and solution, and gradual transition while being careful not to let your running enthusiasm get ahead of what your body can cope with…cumulative stress and strain can creep up on you, and is common in transitioning to minimalist running.

For runners wanting to change to a minimalist approach and who are not injured, many of the same principles apply…basically, hasten slowly. What I think is a better strategy is to insert small portions of minimalist running within an existing program. For reasons mentioned above, I'm not a fan of making a wholesale change to minimalism without reason (and certainly not 'barefoot' running), but small amounts (measured in minutes per week) can be helpful in a range of ways. Having said that, using different shoes for different sessions is part of being a runner, so in just doing this you’ll be switching between degrees of minimalist running.

The benefits of minimalist running, for those who make a successful transition, vary. As eluded to earlier, the journey to minimalism and what you learn along the way can be as valuable as the destination, so you'll be a more educated runner in a wider aspect of running. You'll also have a new range of shoes to purchase from, especially as more companies come up with a good range of offerings - there's already some nice shoes around. Depending on your reason for changing, your running may improve if only because you might be not be injured (as much!). But your mechanics and efficiency might have also improved - this can be a side-effect of changing to minimalist running. In doing so, the function of your lower legs will also improve. The switch is minimalist shoes on its own will not necessarily improve your running (except for the benefit of lighter shoes).

Minimalist running does have a place, but it's not a black-and-white scenario that some might have you believe. There are degrees of minimalist running, and a range of reasons why you might want to make a change…which needs careful consideration. But above all, the important thing about minimalist running - if you are going to make a change - is how you go about it. Be measured and considered and careful, and make the change for reasons that are aligned with your long-term running continuity.

The athlete's athlete

You probably know - or at least know of - someone like this. You know them because they are one(s) who seem to just 'get it' when it comes to sports. They always race well to the extent that you'd bet your house on them. They rise above any prevailing circumstances and distinguish themselves by their notable performances…they're probably over achievers in other aspects of life, also. They are an athlete's athlete.

An athlete's athlete is someone who captures all the essential aspects of being a well rounded and accomplished athlete…but it goes beyond just that. It's a definition that is shaped your individual perspective, but suffice to say, an athlete's athlete is the athlete (and person) you might imagine yourself as being, in a perfect world. They epitomise all the good points you imagine of an ideal athletic peer.

So why is it these people, in particular, stand out, and what are the common characteristics of being an athlete's athlete?

First and foremost, an athlete's athlete knows themselves in depth. They know their abilities, limits, capabilities, constraints, the way they respond in various circumstances, the stimulus they need for a particular outcome, when to go hard - or easy - and so much more. They have an amazing and innate grasp of pacing in races, and how to squeeze the last drop of performance from their body on any given day.

Such self awareness has usually come about through conscientious training - being fully conscious and aware of what they are experiencing in each session and race. They realise that the things they learn in training are preparing them for racing, part-and-parcel with the physical fitness that goes with it. Further, they make the connection between different types of sessions and the net effect and outcome on their fitness, and how it felt during the process so they know how to fine tune and tweak the session next time for maximum benefit.

An athlete's athlete is also extremely diligent in what they do to contribute to their performance. They train and prepare with the bigger goal in mind, being reassured by the good sessions and learning from the others. They could tell you exactly what they are doing in training, and why, and also rattle off other information like workload, session milestones, training performance markers, etc, because that information is so closely part of the picture of their training. The things they do are micro-managed to perfection. More than likely there is training diary behind the scenes going back seasons and seasons.

When it comes to actual racing an athlete's athlete is solid as a rock, with only small variance in their quality performances. They know their equipment, the effect conditions will have on the day, what are the best tactics, race nutrition, emotional stability and so on. With little fuss they just get the job done - it's all about race execution.

As people, an athlete's athlete is a breath of fresh air. Quiet and humble, they tend to let their actions do the talking rather than feel the need to talk themselves up. You'll need to pin them down to hear any elboration about themselves and what they do, other than just the obvious fact that they just do it. They will be happy to share thoughts and advice in a generous way, but without any accompanying hoopla. Just the straight, down-to-earth facts. Their sport is part of their life that blends into their identity and persona, rather then being overtly who they are.

The lessons you can draw from an athlete's athlete are endless. From their approach to diligent training, understanding of the sport and perspective on where they fit into it, race performances through to the down-to-earth people that they are - the sum of many parts. They just get it, and derive satisfaction from the process of being part of the sport. One more thing, an athlete's athlete exists at all levels in the sport, not just the pointy end. You'll notice them as much for what they aren't as what they are.

Coaching Art vs Science

In many Coaching 101 textbooks is a section titled something like "The Art vs Science of Coaching", which goes into discussion about the balance between the gut instinct, experience and understanding of a coach versus (or contrasted with) what the collective body of scientific knowledge prescribes. It's a battle of ideologies with one saying "we just understand" while the other says "we know because science says so". One is intangible while the other relies on measuring and being measurable. Ultimately, of course, it is the athletic performances that counts most.

With sports being based on human behaviour…something innately difficult to measure repeatably and reliably…there is no magic formula for success from one athlete to the next. It is natural that athletes seek out the option they believe has the highest chance of delivering that success. But which is it…the artisan style coach or the calculated, scientific style? The answer probably lies with the preference of each individual athlete as there are so many variables. Let's look into it a little further.

Coaches have been around in sports for a long, long time. Coaches were guiding athletes to victories and world records way before the emergence of "ground breaking" science, developing theories and approaches which have stood the test of time, and combined it with eccentricities that have been the hallmark of genius throughout the ages. Great coaches think outside the square for ideas and inspiration, evolving over time with results that speak a louder message than their sometimes cryptic words. Great coaches are creative artisans at heart.

The art that these coaches bring is in the form of an innate understanding of sports, especially the one(s) they practice in, and an empathy for the individual person that sees them as a whole, not just the athlete visible to the spectator. A great coach recognises what (and when) an athlete needs in order to improve their performance, combining physical, psychological, emotional, tactical, technical and other elements into a rounded program suited to the individual. A true coach deals with each person individually, calls upon hard earned experience, teachings from others, and amazing foresight in creating a program and adapting it to the scenario presented by each athlete.

Coaches will develop and evolve their own theories, methodologies and protocols which are applied, tested in competition, evaluated, revised and so on year after year to develop programs which are evidence and performance based on the results of many athletes over many years. Coaches have a sense of what is the right thing to do and when, and know that one approach does not suit all. How they do this is their artistic flair.

It has often been said that science's main role is to understand why and how coaching techniques work, rather than to be prescriptive about what should be done. It's as if coaches might say "I told you so" after science "proves" something that was well known and practiced already. "Damn crack pots", the scientists might reply…

Nonetheless, science is important, although the relationship between coaches and scientists can be a little tetchy at times. Science looks at situations in black-and-white, measures things, analyses and then seeks to define groups into which people should fit based on their findings. Science struggles to cope with individualities - outliers - usually excluding them on the basis of statistical exceptions. Having said that, science is very good at developing a great understanding about a defined scenario.

A good analogy is to say that science seeks to discover everything about one square of a checker board, but ignoring the other 63 squares directly around it!!

In a coaching and training context, science can give a great insight into why something might have happened as it did. But in trying to draw conclusions, science can fall short because humans are individual, and the needs of one person will always differ from another. To generalise scientific findings in order to apply them broadly dilutes the specific value that science is trying to offer.

To be a scientific coach might be to ignore the indivudual characteristics of athletes, things like their strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, adaptability, recovery needs, work ethic and so on. A scientific coach might seek to apply a protocol that research has found to effective, but miss the individual detail that made it so effective, with the consequence being sub-optimal training that that person. To extend the checker board analogy above, a particular scientific training approach might only be suitable for 1 out of 64 people!!

But as in most debates, the reality is that neither extreme makes for the "best" coach. Coaches these days need to have capabilities in all areas, albeit with some emphasis reflecting their background. A coach without an understanding and consideration for what science is saying is ignorant, while a science based coach without respect for the age-old art of working with individuals is arrogant. The art and science of coaching needs to work alongside each other for the best coaching outcomes.

The role and importance of scientific knowledge in sport is undenied and unquestioned. The skill and techniques of coaching have evolved over generations of athletes. The real skill of coaching - and training - these days is to be open minded enough to consider all sources of information available, scientific or otherwise, and "cherry pick" the pieces that are most helpful in the pursuit of what is best for the athlete and their performance. Because after all, the welfare of athletes and their performance is the main goal!!

Running numbers

Did you know that runners are great with numbers? Usually you'd think that accountants, engineers, physicists and the like would be the numbers people, but no, this valuable skill is shared amongst runners, too. What is so surprising, however, is that most runners don't even realise they are talented beyond their physical prowess, but trust me, it is true. Let me explain.

Running is ruled by numbers. For starters, there is the distance you run, which might be in kilometers or miles, and could also include a number of additional meters or yards. So any run might be 5.7 km, or 3.5 miles. If it was through hills then you will have some elevation so that 5.7km run might include 124 meters of ascent, with a steepest gradient of 8.4%. See, plenty of numbers…but we haven't even got into the interesting part yet!!

Some people prefer to measure runs in duration, for example 25 mins 32 secs, or 25:32 min. If you include hours then it become 0:25:32 hr, and fractions would mean 0:25:32.6 hr!! Now we're getting into some good stuff. If that 5.7 km run took 25:32 min, it means you ran at an average pace of 4 min 28.8 sec per kilometer.

You might laugh, but all this information is important to a runner…and to borrow a trusim from business, you can't manage what you can't measure. So for any runner who is wanting to improve - which is almost all of us - then these numbers are it!! They are a black-and-white indication of who and what you are as a runner. The number of kilometers you run in a week, your average pace, time for certain intervals, and more, carry you from session to session and season to season. Some runners might seem blasé about the details of their running, but you can be sure they do know what their numbers are and can talk for hours about them and what they mean!!

Races provide a whole new set of numbers like placings, PB's for various distances - or for favourite courses - scores against rivals and more. Just witness the angst when a course turns out to be inaccurately measured to see how important numbers are to runners. The victory of beating a PB - a number - is the euphoria that drives runners on to racking up more training numbers.

Then you have the skill of mental arithmetic mid-run, calculating how much time, what distance, the required pace, how much effort, etc, in order to achieve a goal. This is something not just anyone can do…you need to be a runner to get it. It makes Sudoku seem easy.

So next time someone passes you off as "simply a runner", rest assured that you'd be a Nobel prize winner if you weren't busy training for your next race!!

Race assets

What is your favourite race each year, you know, the one you mark in the calendar months in advance and then pack the car to journey back to, reliving past glories and seeking new experiences? Do you tell other people so they too make the trip next year, boosting event numbers and establishing it as a 'must do' race each season? This kind of on-going support for races is the heart and soul of sports, more so than the glitz and glamour that sometimes precedes events actually becoming successful. Strong races are good for the sport.

But strong races also stand out as being ripe for picking by big event managers, when they out grow the grass roots committees that were behind their initial success, and need a bigger and more accomplished management team behind them. The smart event managers will nurture and care for their popular events, knowing the value they bring both in dollar terms and prestige for their brand and reputation, thereby attracting more people to their other events. The net result is still good for the sport, with more quality event options for people to choose between.

But the risk is that established races lose their identity that made them so popular in the first place, and become assets and commodities that are assessed for their black-and-white value to the managing organisation, and become the subject of ownership battles for almost territorial rights to hold and run an event at a defined location, on a defined date. While the recent trend has been towards improving the quality of race experience, one wonders if there will a point soon of cost cutting and cost saving by event managers, seeking to maximise return for less outlay, relying on the good will built up over years of participating by many athletes.

In recent times there has been competition at play in the triathlon market, such as WTC buying out USM Event Management and thus securing rights to IM Cairns away from Challenge. Then, perhaps in a return shot, Challenge came in and pulled the WTC rug from under the historic IM Canada to establish Challenge Penticton in 2013. These are examples of both new and old events, but each with a deemed value in the marketplace.

For each of these races, they would seem to be essentially the same event except for the branding and associated aspects, each of which has a subtly different appeal to athletes. So once again, competition is good and although not necessarily like a case of picking your favourite brand from the supermarket shelf, does provide choice in a market that increasingly looks beyond the WTC formula for something new and/or different for iron distance events.

Then there are the cases where an established and iconic event, with a loyal following, is up and moved to a new venue with race organisers perhaps hoping for a “Field of Dreams” scenario of ‘build it and they will come’, relying on the associated race reputation to be the drawing card. In Australia we’ve seen it with IM Australia leaving what many (still) call the ‘spiritual home’ of Foster, to the nearby town of Port Macquarie, leaving many feeling like they were robbed of everything Foster offered the competitor. While athletes followed to the new location, it seemed there was some resentment about how it was done, forced onto the athletes at a time when the choice of events was more limited. The product of IM Australia won out, and athletes were at the mercy of the IM licence holders at the time, IMG, who we usually associate with big, greedy corporate organisation, for whom the bottom line is everything.

Whether or how much race organisers give consideration to the humble athlete we don’t know. Are they out to squeeze whatever they can from our pockets in the interests of “shareholder return”, or do they really have our interests at heart? The recent example of WTC cancelling entry to IN New York for 2013 shows some level of community concern, but that was only after backlash at the $1200 entry fee they tried to put over everyone. Whether it would have sold out is secondary to what is deemed as value for money...and an entry fee of > $1000 might have been a tipping point.

While I’ve got no problem in people running a business of organising events, heck, my brother does just that for his job, it’s when races are considered like assets on a Monopoly board that the line between what is in the best interests of whom becomes blurred. Ultimately supply and demand will sort things out, but soon there might be a wake up call on one side or the other about the lengths people will go to for a race...the playing field might be in for some levelling out, then.

Inter sport respect

You might have heard that Caine Eckstein is doing Hawaii IM in October this year. Eckstein is a surf Ironman star, winning the famous Coolongatta Gold race 5 times…and he's only 25 years old now!! Like all the surf Ironman guys, he is tank, has a huge engine and is incredibly skilled in the surf. His name has come up a few times in relation to switching to triathlons, along with various stats and numbers for how fast he actually goes, even though surf competitions are notoriously affected by variable conditions making it hard to get an accurate bearing on his ability.

The reason his participation is earning some attention in triathlon circles is because triathletes have a healthy respect for their beach multi-sport cousins. There's enough similarities that we (triathletes) can appreciate how good these guys (and gals) are, even though we rarely line up against them in a race…open water swims being one occasion. So now he is making a jump into our territory we want to know how good he actually is…it doesn't matter that he may have never ridden a bike beyond the surf club before!!

Inter sport respect (or lack of) - and rivalry - is a funny thing. How do multi-sport athletes view single sport athletes, and vice-versa? Not only that, how do long distance athletes view sprinters? Then there is the intense interest when someone transitions from single-sport to multi-sport, or back the other way, and speculation about how they will go now the playing field is the same as the commenting peers. Just remember the hoo-ha when Lance came back to triathlons, and whether he would re-capture his junior form…which he did, until affairs went awry. Equally, many folks made great predictions in speculating about possibly Chrissie Wellington switching to cycling.

There's a tendency for triathletes to look down on single sport athletes a little, after all, surely it would be easy to excel if you're only doing one sport? Also, single sports seem to be the thing you do when you're not a multi-sport athlete, not as a chosen sport in the first instance. Being competent at 3 sports does not necessarily mean being good at three sports, until you consider it as one sport, triathlon, which is the only time that triathletes can claim any kind of ascendancy.

Since triathletes are familiar with three sports it does mean they have some degree of understanding about what it takes to perform in the separate events, which would explain why triathletes generally take high interest in swimming, cycling and running in the broader, and especially international, arenas. Triathletes have good respect for athletes in these sports through their kinship, having a grasp for how fast they really are, much like the respect for Caine Eckstein.

But when you ask a triathlete about some other sports the level of respect varies, as if to say those sports are not "hard" sports based on some kind of effort based comparison…which ignores the intricate role of skill combined with effort. Badminton…ha, soft touches. Judo…ho ho, just a play wrestle. And so on. Each of those sports could use the same retort triathletes often employ…if it were so easy, everyone would do it!! So it's fair to say that every sport is deserving of respect, and that the people at the top of the respective games really are hard athletes.

Intra-sport rivalry is fascinating. Just go to an athletics track and see the divide between the sprinters and middle-long distance runners…they are mutually exclusive groups, even though they are all (just) runners!! Sprinters seemingly demand respect, while longer distance athletes just do their thing. High maintenance versus low fuss.

The view in triathlons is intriguing. Long course triathletes seem to be of the belief that short-course tris are what you do before stepping up to the "real' triathlons, whereas short-course guys can't understand why those crusty demons, IM athletes, would want to go that long, that slowly!! It took an established IM star like Macca to enlighten us about the realities of ITU racing, and really state that short-course and IM athletes are niche athletes.

I think that's where the discussion should head, respecting and understanding the niche that athletes calve out in their chosed speciality. Some people are good at one format and not at others, just like some tennis players are better on grass than clay, and some horses run better on heavy tracks than dry ones. They are all good, but just not necessarily in the way that the critics can appreciate. Nonetheless, speculating about one sport compared to another makes for great bar room debate…and don't forget, led to Ironman triathlon being conceived!!

Bruised running ego

I haven't written much update on my running recently, which just about reflects the amount of running I've been doing in the last month…not by choice (of course), but due to a damn annoying injury. The upshot is that I'm not doing Melbourne Marathon in Oct, but instead reverting back to plan A of trying to get some speed back into these legs for some fast 5km and 10km running. More on that shortly.

Winding back to post marathon things were going about as expected. For the first week after the race my calves were tight, tight, tight, which stopped me from running although otherwise my body was feeling pretty good, which is not necessarily a bad thing since my body needed some rest and my calves forced me to have. Nonetheless, it didn't stop me from confirming my intention to do Melbourne Marathon, to capitalise on my great fitness and form leading into Gold Coast, and with a change to program brought about by a baby in the house, I was excited to see what I could do in October.

I started running again in the second week, feeling pretty good overall, with no sore spots and just some residual calf tightness that I worked through. By the end of that week I was looking to start putting some sessions back into training, along with drills and things, all in small amounts but enough to mark the start of pointing towards October.

Into the third week post marathon and by mid-week I was conscious of some soreness in the joint of my middle toe on my left foot. My self assessment suggested it was some inflammation, and not a dreaded "stressie", and hoped it would pass with a couple of small actions - NSAIDS and a day off. Sadly it didn't, but got worse, not quite so I couldn't run, but it was mightly uncomfortable to do so. It felt like my toe was going to explode and drop off…pretty sore. I'm still not sure what prompted it, possibly a combination of some drills and form work, but not sure.

That third week of running went well, otherwise, but I could see a break coming up…hopefully only short. A few days rest helped only a little so I checked in to see the doctor on a Friday evening and, as I hoped, she injected it in two spots with some cortisone, saying to rest until Tuesday when it should be OK to go…fantastic!! Over that weekend it was so-so, which is often the case post cortisone, then it usually improves rapidly. But this time was different.

While I felt that the inflammation settled, it was replaced with a massive bruise in the area of the injections - a purple, 20 cent piece size bruise. It seemed that perhaps the needle had hit a blood vessel, or something, and this was the aftermath…and it hurt, also. Tuesday came and went with no chance of running, and so it continued for another week while gradually the bruise disappearend, but the symptoms remained although slowly improved.

11 days after the injection I went for a run, my toe / foot hurt on every step. Fail. Two days later the same, and the next day and the next day. Unfortunately it seemed the bruising (or whatever it was) would need rest from running to settle…it was driving me nuts. Prospects for the marathon were not looking good, but I held onto some hope.

4 more days off running and I tried again, and it still hurt but was a lot better - positive signs. The next day, however, broke me. It was really sore and I had to walk back to work (lunch-time run). The marathon was off, plan A was back on, and I knew I had to wait until there were no symptoms before I tried running again.

It's now 4+ weeks since I first stopped running, and 3.5+ weeks since the injection and I think I am very close to running…perhaps tomorrow. I'll see how it is when I wake up…the last 2 days have been pretty good. I just want to run again.

But rather than being a story of complete woe, I've used the non-running time to get right back into some circuit exercises, along with core strength work, which is neglected a little when in full training. It's felt good to burn in a different way each morning in the back yard with my little set of dumbells and things, and it's also been nice to commute to/from work on my (push) bike for a few weeks…although I'm ready to give the commuter bike a rest now!!

Also, of course, there's a little person in the house now who I want to give some attention to, and although I've been keeping fit, little Edward (and Ms. A) have been a great alternative outlet for my emotional energy.

So once I can run again it's onto to Plan A, with the goal of running a sub-16min 5km and sub 33min 10km. I also hope to run some track races, like 800's, 1500's and the like. I haven't had this kind of focus since school, so it will be an interesting challenge, and one I'm looking forward to!!

Who won? Who cares...

Think back to the last race you did…do you remember it more for the elite who came top-3 overall, or for the training partners and experiences you shared, or the race memories you have with any family or friends who came out to support you? What about looking ahead to your next big race…will you be thinking of which pros you'll sharing the course with, or the opportunity it the challenge it presents to you

The key question I'm asking is how much do you notice of the pros doing the race(s) you do? If you took them away, would you notice?

Endurance sports participation is booming, not just triathlon. Look at the numbers in running races, bike events (road & MTB), ocean swims and others. You wonder how there could be an obesity epidemic with these participation trends, where you need to act quickly just to get an entry in. It's a great time to be in the endurance sports business, in almost any capacity, as people look for new ways to challenge themselves and then move onto the next challenge - aspirational athletes who seek an experience, then disappearing from the scene once they've had it.

Of course, making up any field of competitors are the people who fight it out at the pointy end for the glory of overall success. But how many people notice who they are, let alone remember them? Sure, some are bona fide stars in the sport, and raise the performance bar to amazing levels, but to the regular middle-of-pack punter, does that make any difference to their day?? Probably not.

Most people in most events are there for their own special reason and challenge, perhaps to lose weight, beat their friends, have fun (al la 'fun runs') or other things. They know they will never win; not overall, not any category, nothing. But they are still there for their own reason which has zip to do with the folks who stay for presentations, and more to do with a great photo they can post on Facebook to show/tell their friends what they did on the weekend. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, in fact quite the opposite, since one person sharing their great experience might inspire more to do the same…and so on.

The thing is, the winners can do as they please and it will go unnoticed by most…and not just because they were out of sight in front of everyone else. Ask most mainstream media (ie, not specialised media) folks what will be a more popular story, one about the reigning world champion, or the teenager who overcame a major medical issue to complete, the person with one arm and leg or the battler from Struggle St. The public like stories of people they can relate to, and for most, the race winning elite in the sport seem to be almost inhuman and from another planet, such are their performance abilities.

The boom in endurance sports has also been great for charities who ride the emotional train with selected participants, who in turn use it to inspire donations in support of their efforts. Every charity is worthy of support, and linking it to the accomplishment of and individual is an increasingly common way to raise worthy funds. An effect this has is turning what used to be known as athletic competitions into huge fundraising vehicles, which again, is a fantastic outcome.

The thing is, these days the focus of most people doing sporting events has changed from being about the ones at the front, and more towards the everyday person, the journey they've taken, and their experiences along the way.

This leaves sporting purists in a quandry, since by nature purists rejoice in excellence of performance, the heat of competition, perfection and results. These things will always be part of events, particularly elite sports that we watch from the sidelines, in "stadiums", viewed as the spectacle they are. But the spotlight on the streets is vast and broad, where the elite blend into the masses except for some fleeting moments. When the elite are viewed on a performance stage, like the Olympics, they inspire us, but day-in, day-out, it is more likely to be the middle-of-pack athlete who is doing the inspiring, and celebrating their own little triumphs on their own journey to a sporting destiny.

All this is not to make judgement but to reflect on the changes occurring in sporting events. Some might argue there should be great attention given to the elite, as a way to exemplify the incredible capacity of humans when they choose to focus on something, but others would argue that broad participation is the foundation for everything else. I think it is both, that it right to highlight the relative excellence of the high achievers, but to also humanise them as still being people with two arms and legs, or not, in the case of amazing Paralympians - the principle is the same. To highlight that the difference between ordinary and extraordinary is just a little extra, it can help to broaden people's horizons to what might be possible. Once you inspire people to seek out their boundaries then great things can happen, in any field.

Come back run

It's a day that has been coming for a while, that you've been looking forward to like a kid looks forward to xmas, and yet the actual date has been uncertain…which only magnifies the anxiety and excitement. So when the day finally does arrive you feel an extra spring in your stride, and simple joy in heading out the door for a run. It's blissful.

But this is no ordinary run. It is the come-back run after injury, and if it goes well then just try wiping the smile off your face because you're finally back in the game!

Sadly I've had lots of come-back runs in my time, mostly due to injury. There's never a good time to be injured, so making a come-back can never come soon enough, and fortunately the memory of the time off running fades with every step, and each new run on the come back trail. The good feeling of a come-back gets better each time, because each time I realise how much a part of my overall welfare running is.

However, come-back runs don't always end well. There is nothing like the disappointment of heading out to turn over a new leaf, only to stop short some way into the run, not by choosing, but because things have not gone right. The slow march home is defeating and depressing, as is opening the front door to family faces wondering why you're back so soon…even though they probably know. It's a feeling of failure, even though it's "only" running, especially after the anticipation…the come-back will have to wait for another day.

But when come-back runs go well it is like a light has come on again in your life, like an old friend has returned and you take joy in getting to know them all over again, re-affirming all the reasons why you got on so well in the first place. It can take some time, especially after an extended break, but that just helps to savour the familiarity and comfort of such a simple activity you depend on each day.

Often family and friends might not realise how important the missing piece is to your fabric while you can't run, as you try to gloss over it, but when you are 'complete' again and status quo returns, there's no mistaking the spring in your step and excitement in your outlook. The come-back run means so much, not the least that you'll never take running for granted again.

Craig Mottram, triathlete?

An article for www.firstoffthebike.com

It's fair to say the Brownlees and Javier Gomez are the "it" guys on the circuit at the moment, and with good reason. But what would they think of an athlete with a 12:54min PB for 5000m coming into the sport? How about if that same athlete had some real swimming ability, and in some brief stints on a bike put dents in the age-old Falls Creek climb TT record? What would they think about that prospect?

Welcome (back) to triathlons, Mr. Craig Mottram.

This news (or rumour?) should grab attention and headlines in triathlon, even in the aftermath of the London Olympics, since it marks the move of a significant international single-sport athlete into ITU triathlons. The fact he is an Australian could also help save face in the TA high performance department, and maybe prompt some other (near) elite runners to also consider a move into triathlons, short-cutting the traditional life-long development path most triathletes follow. The word out of the Victorian Institute of Sport (VIS) is that Mottram is likely to be listed as a transition athelte and move from the athletics to triathlon. And if it isn't to be Mottram would this type of experiment work with other transition athletes?

But what of Mottam's potential in triathlons…would he be a serious contender in Rio in 2016?

Going back many years Mottram was a very good junior triathlete, winning the Australian National Schools Triathlon championship before opting for a very successful international running career, highlighted by a bronze medal in the 5000m at the 2005 World Championships, a famous silver at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and a PB of 12:54min. His running achievements are almost legendary in Australia, and he commands respect whenever he lines up in a race over any distance.

That was all before he got a serious Achilles injury in 2008/09, which took until 2010/11 to really get over and back into serious competition again, albeit not reaching the same level as before. It was during this time that his rehab included significant cross-training under the guidance of a top triathlon coach, and a select few got to witness his talents in the pool and on the bike…and were mighty impressed. His swimming ability, according to some of the firstoffthebike.com sharing pool space for some time in our swim squad…he sure can swim.

While we are short on actual numbers measuring his ability, we'll just work from anecdotal statements and ponder what he might be do, and bring to the sport although once again the word around the tri traps is that his 'number' show a man on the way up. Of course, his swimming will be crucial, since the Olympics showed again how important the role it plays in the race outcome is. His recent forays into swimming have been to complement his running rehab, and not necessarily to develop him into the best swimmer he can be - this would take many months of high volume training, and some more. He needs to aim to be in the front pack, wetsuit or not. This is where the most work would be required, and perhaps where the biggest transformation is necessary in becoming a triathlete.

Then comes the ride. Although he is "all legs", on a bike he is reportedly a natural (to an extent), with good skills and great climbing ability. His cycling ability would come in time, combined with good guidance and coaching…not to mention the bike sponsorship deal he has reportedly signed, already!!

Now onto the run, his strength, although Mottram would be the first to say that you don't take up cycling to improve your running…rather, that cycling makes your running legs dead and heavy. That's something he'll need to deal with. Nonetheless, it is his run leg that would stand him apart heading out of T2, and fans around would be salivating about how fast he might run. Looking to his recent running form for indicators is tricky…his results range from 13:18min (5000m) to a disappointing 13:45min at the Olympics, and 28:50min for 10,000m last December. He's recently been consistently in the 13:20-30min range for 5000m, which is OK for a runner but very good for a triathlete. One wonders what he might run once he's into a routine of swim, bike and run training?

Then there are the complicating aspects of how he will run off the bike, mastering transitions, tactics, and not to mention his age (31)…already past where the best ITU athletes are peaking. On the flip side, he is a very race smart athlete, a quick learner, and brings a wealth of international athletic experience to both his training and racing. But his potential move does raise a myriad of questions. And these could prove to be the sticking point. Does the VIS take a chance on the durability of Mottram? Is this just a band aid solution in the wake of Post Games finger pointing? Or should Triathlon Australia continue to nurture younger talent which seems to be the methodology du jour of the current powerhouses.

Above all that, Mottram would bring new attention to the sport in a similar - but much smaller - way that Lance Armstrong did. Mottram is well known to the public and media both here and overseas, and he would attract great attention and support from many quarters. Already he has a very knowledgable and experienced team in his corner advising and helping him along the path ahead - the people he turned to during his rehab, and more. He has connections that fledgling pros don't have, which can be invaluable, opening key doors for him. But we saw the same scenario with Macca last season and although he boosted the profile of the Australian team results are what will ultimately pay the bills.

So how would be likely go in a triathlon? Chances are he will be successful. It will be fascinating watching his progress and development into this new sport…maybe he should have made the decision 4 years ago!

Olympic Triathlon Observations

The fourth appearance of triathlon in the Olympic Games has been run and won, in somewhat contrasting ways but each by deserving athletes…as much as any athlete can "deserve" to win, as opposed to earning a win! But semantics aside, there were observations - and conclusions - aplenty from not just the races but the lead-up also, drawn from the Australian and international athlete performances. So in no particular order here are some things I noted:

* The 3 women's medallists were all coached by Australians, two of whom work outside of any national system or program (as do their athletes) and have experienced great success through their athletes. The third coach has recently been poached by USAT, which is their gain and our loss, but he seems to be wedded to national 'systems'. The GB system (also headed by an Australian) produced the Brownlees. Does this say anything about the merits of national systems or not??...a hard question to answer, and whether athlete gender has any role in this equation.

* Further to the point above, interesting to note the counties who had multiple top-10 finshers in each race: Women: Aust, NZ  Men: GB, Franc

* Assuming an accurate course (with a 43km bike), the race winning times were fast: 1:59hr in womens and 1:46hr in mens. The quality and standard of race was befitting of the Olympics.

* The trusim that you can't win it in the swim, but you sure can lose it…was proven again. It was only a concerted effort by a strong second men's group that closed the gap to the Brownlee-Gomez group. There was no chance, in both races, of the lead group relaxing to let the chase group catch up…if you weren't there, you were no where, which ruled out many of the well fancied athletes in both races.

* Bike handling skills are as important as bike riding ability - off-camber turns, wet roads, poor surface, lots of corner, "traffic furniture", etc, were all part of the course in London, as were some falls. You need to stay on 2 wheels if you're going to be any chance.

* Any team tactics were incidental to the outcome of each race. I would have though Stuart Hayes would have worked to STOP his chase group from catching the Brownlee group, and then it was very unlikely that one team "domestique" in each race (both from GB!!) would or could have any effect on the race. Triathlon is still an individual sport.

* Both run legs were drag races, without any notable surges, tactics or change in pace. The speed of the first km in the men's race was astounding, and established the podium. Alistair Brownlee led the whole way and literally ran the others into the dirt. As a consequence, the time gaps in the top-10 in each race were a little wider than in the regular World Triathlon Series races.

* The women's finish was spectacular, and was heading towards a sprint finish from about mid-way through the run leg. Training to kick is very hard to do - generally you can either kick or you can't, and the women who featured are proven sprint finishers in recent years, including the current World Triathlon Series.

* Gomez was out sprinted in Beijing, but in London his run leg was better so that it didn't come down to that. His strength is his strength, not his sprint, so he improved that rather than trying to develop his weakness, to avoid being in a sprint situation. I'm guessing he is perhaps a 60sec faster runner now than then. Brownlee was plain out run in Beijing, but just a year later was dominating
This might be a lesson for Densham in looking ahead to Rio.

* The best runners also look like the best runners because of the way they move. Not only quickest over the ground, their fundamental running biomechanics are the most sound, and most efficient, and stand up best under extreme pressure. Plus they have the raw running speed, endurance, and strength. Their road 10km time on a twisting, turning course was near to world class.

* I'm speculating with this point…but would suggest that for the gold medallists this was their peak race in a four-year cycle, as opposed to the peak race for the year, ie, it was a higher pinnacle of performance. Taking that strategic approach of continual improvement, over the long term, often separates the very good from the great. They take hits and losses as part of the journey, with the main prize being the important thing.

* Alistair Brownlee's comeback from a (reportedly) serious Achilles injury this year is remarkable. Writing at the time on this, I doubted that he would or could. That he did, and won on the run, is remarkable.

* Where to now for Australia's high performance?? The women are pretty good, but apart from Densham this year, have been hit-and-miss for a couple of years. The men are not looking so good, and there's not really anyone obvious in the pipeline who is looking like a top-5 prospect. We have a national program, but I wonder what is different to the the successful countries who ARE producing top triathletes?

* Finally, the gold medallists and the races they had, will be talked about for years. They now own the very top prize in triathlons, Olympic Gold. Full stop.

Triathlon back to the future

Another article for www.firstoffthebike.com

Triathlon is no longer the new kid on the block, no longer the novelty event, no longer the thing that extreme athletes do. It has reached mainstream, where people consider doing a triathlon in much the same way they would consider a fun run or bike event, albeit with a little more complexity!! One of the things that helped triathlon get on the map…much like it did for our Ironman cousins in surf life saving…was live TV coverage of events tailored for a TV audience. The Formula 1 series was a new era for a new sport, and like World Series Cricket, shook the sport at it's foundation but changed it for the better.

However, the difference between the F1 triathlon series and World Series Cricket is that cricket has kicked the theme along, and extended it with Twenty20, whereas triathlon has shrunk back into the corner, under shadows, where a lot of other minority, mainstream sports live. When did you last see triathlon live on TV?

What made the F1 series so good and so successful? It started with the big thinking Bray brothers to come up with the concept and develop it into the product we saw. They were rebellious, but visionary, brought some great sponsorship, knew how to package the product so it would be appealing, took it to the people in central city locations, sexed it all up and bingo, triathlon was live on TV and something the public talked about around the water cooler at work on Monday.

The concept challenged the traditionalists, but turned out to be popular amongst the public, and importantly, the athletes, who supported it with enthusiasm. The athletes were well presented, wore matching uniforms, recognised the leader with a yellow suit, and were front-centre of the series - they were the product content and PR. The TV ratings and event crowds supported the idea, and eventually even Triathlon Australia came around to it, liking the effect it was having on their sport…but perhaps wondering why they didn't come up with the idea in the first place (answer is that they couldn't think outside the square!).

The features of the races are what people will remember. They were short, fast and exciting, with one event often including several actual races which resulted in a winner for the day, and series scoreboard. You could follow your favourite athletes throughout the series. When I say the races were short (although some were longer), I mean in the range of 10-20min, which had lactic acid blowing out the ears of the athletes. Some were swim-bike-run. Some were run-bike-swim. Some were bike-run-swim…there were no rules, and anything went.

Also, try things like the "bike bowl" - something you'd see in a skate park rather than triathlon - or the portable pool they carted around the countryside for the event, or the bike cameras…these things defined the F1 triathlon series.

Then there were the athletes. All the best triathletes in Australia came together for the F1 series. In fact, it was a fight to get a start let alone a "contract". From short course to IM, they were all here. It was a proving ground for these guys and girls - yes, women were part of the F1 scene - and not only served to raise the standard of Australian triathletes to being world best, but gave them some profile out from the sporting wilderness. Brad Bevan was the star, who mastered the game first, and held his place there for year after year - all comers could not knock him off. Add in other legitimate stars like Greg Welch, Chris McCormack, Emma Carney, Jackie Gallagher, a young Crowie, an even younger Peter Robertson through to latter day star Courtney Atkinson, the races were a who's who in the sport. Even Guy Leech had a go, but got smashed. There were no beg-your-pardons, or excuse-me's. Racing was cut-throat, and the athletes hard.

The legacy of the F1 series has been lasting, but the sponsors haven't. The series coincided with Australian dominance of the sport internationally - many who still are today - and leads you to wonder whether the current crop of triathletes would be better racers if they also had the chance to race F1 style races.

What would it take to get triathlon back on TV in Australia on a regular basis, for as many sports will attest, TV coverage is the key to success in terms of profile, participation and eventually performance. The short answer is that it's not easy, and takes a lot of will power, connections, influence, money and more, but starts with a great product.

Triathlon does offer that product, and while many would suggest it would be as simple as reincarnating the F1 series, I think it needs a bit of evolution to keep pace with the changing appetite of the sporting public since those glory days of the 90's and early 2000's. Perhaps a mix of individual and team events, mid-event primes to encourage aggressive tactics, immunities from elimination, mid-race point scoring, madison-style enduros, and similar concepts could add appeal to the style of racing. Working on the event production would add some pizzazz, like the trademark blue carpet in ITU events, raised finish line, grandstands, GPS measurement of athlete's speed / pace, live athlete cams, stats analysis, and more. There are great ideas people around in sports who would a give some good insight to sparking things up.

Then you need to work through the bureaucracy, starting with Triathlon Australia, the seemingly immovable beast in the way to endorsement. You could bypass them and be damned, or work with them and perhaps in 20 years have a outcome…with a product that would probably be watered down and sanitised to the point of boredom. Perhaps WTC or Challenge would go at something like this, but since it would be elite based and not mass participation, their interest might be limited. So the obvious pathway is to get existing event organisers to begin incorporating these ideas, companies like Supersprint, Elite Energy and USM, to name a few. They might not get TV coverage (straight away), but it would be a move in the right direction, at least.

What they could do, in conjunction with an existing race, is have an elite, F1-style race AFTER the age group race, during the time when people are standing around chewing the fat of their race. Have some quick fire races that are over with in 60mins, and which burn holes in the lactic tanks of the athletes. It would be fast and exciting, have a ready audience of triathletes (who otherwise never see the elites because they are first away), and be on in a mid-late morning time frame when the public might actually be passing by. Sure, it wouldn't be the F1 series, but baby steps towards that…proving the concept has a life beyond the memory of old triathletes.

Something needs to be done to give triathlon a lift and boost the way the F1 series did, and short of the major sponsor or benefactor stopping by (which seems very unlikely at the moment), the people with influence and ability to make things happen need to get ideas together to lift triathlon by the shoelaces (back) to a field of prominence from where anything is possible for the sport.

Lance Armstrong - situation normal

Another article for www.firstoffthebike.com as an update on Lance Armstrong.

A well known TV phrase springs to mind in relation to Lance Armstrong's halted foray into triathlons…"we now return you to normal programming". While discussion of Lance's situation is still running strongly in the media, talk about his participation as a triathlete seems to be consigned to the message boards now the door to him racing in Kona seems to be all but closed. It seemed (or was?) a bit like a meteorite…lots of sparkle, but fizzled out quickly.

So what has happened since the last chapter? From a triathlon point-of-view, WTC stood by their rule that excludes athletes under investigation of doping, which seems to have drawn support for standing by their principles. As Crowie said, hypothetically speaking, if they wouldn't have made an exception for him, then neither should they for Lance. That closed the door to WTC races…unless some legal wrangling can find a work around…and Lance has a lot of legal horsepower in his corner.

But it seems that Lance racing IM anywhere may the least of his concerns at present. Currently he is literally fighting for his life, his reputation, his integrity, the support of millions of fans, and more, as USADA work to land perhaps the biggest fish in the ocean in the fight against drugs. The mud being thrown is leaving dark stains, and in the court of public perception there seems to be hints of resignation that, perhaps, what we all hoped wasn't true, might be. It's a long, slow, drawn out process and regardless of the eventual outcome of the legal charade, the damage is done and the verdict may be met with a "whatever" kind of response. Oh well.

But putting aside the warfare happening in trenches between USADA and Armstrong, where has this left triathlon in light of the huge potential that Armstrong's involvement offered?

For a start, WTC have dropped any reference to Armstrong quicker than a hot potato. Who knows what will happen to the rumoured $millions promised to Livestrong foundation - the value of that money would be worth far less than what he would have brought to the sport and the coffers of WTC. They must surely be pi**ed, bummed, frustrated, dumbfounded and altogether over the fiasco it has all turned into. Associatating themselves with him was a great move in the beginning, but damaged goods don't appeal to shareholders (private equity owned, remember) and so they quickly disassociated him from the brand.

The sport and IM brand has been bigger than any individual since day dot, but Armstrong was threatening to change that balance, which would have - and currently is - posing a risk to the sport being too reliant on any one personality for its successful future. WTC must be re-writing business plans and reverting back to dusty strategy that was shelved when Armstrong walked into their arms. Already we are seeing on-line race day coverage of IM 70.3 events…where Lance "cut his teeth" earlier this year…being scaled back, and any possibility of live TV coverage from Kona into USA remains as a pipe dream. You would also imagine that many big media folks have cancelled their Hawaiian sojurn since the drawcard is not looking like being there.

Perhaps there is an ounce of hope Armstrong might yet race, if some legal deal can be swung to overcome the current impasse. But even if that happens, could he still race? He most likely won't have qualified on points, so he'd need the special treatment of a wildcard…but he's already been denied special treatment by WTC. If he did get a starting slot, what would his fellow pros be thinking?...would they want him there in the prevailing circumstances?? We can be sure that Lance has rarely given a damn what others think, so he might rock in there as confident as ever and just be damned!! The air of excitement that was promising just a month or so ago, has changed for the worse and his bike in the rack may just inflame any lingering animosity amongst his peers.

What is for sure is that he hasn't been seen since his last race at Honu, and the stream of training updates have dwindled to naught. He didn't front up at Challenge Roth, and there seems to be no sign of him racing where he (legally) can in the near future. What he's up to is anyone's guess.

So assuming his chance of racing Kona is dead in the water, what of the expectations for Kona this year? Now there will be just one gunslinger, Macca, in the mix against the established star, Crowie (not withstanding an awful race last weekend), and the guys who have promised but not delivered a win, the likes of Raelert, Vanhoenacher, Henning, Jacobs, Bracht and others. Take out the wild card of Lieto on the bike (although he hasn't been an overall threat for a few years) but add in some emerging stars like Van Lierde (who I think would have beaten Armstrong at IM France), Cunnama, Dellow and others, and the race both seems to have a look of familiarity to it, but also the element of unknown that makes it such an appealing contest each year.

One positive side effect of going back to normal is that the women's race will get the coverage it deserves, rather than possibly being pushed aside under the saturation the men's race would have inevitably got.

There's a lot of things this whole situation has shown, none more so than people can be so quickly forgotten, no matter who you are, and that despite the right to be innocent until proven guilty, perception is perhaps the most important sentiment that matters to both individuals and organisations. At the moment the perception around Armstrong is questionable, and rather than risk this rubbing off on their brand, WTC have taken us back to the future, ready for life as it was going to be before he made a comeback. What comeback, I hear you ask??

Olympic Triathlon Gold Medal

This is part of a "debate" on www.firstoffthebike.com about whether an Olympic Gold is greater than a Hawaii IM title...I'm batting for Olympic Gold. Here's my take.

The Olympics Games are the pinnacle of sporting achievement, representing your country on the biggest sporting stage in the known Universe. Being known as an Olympian is deserving of respect for the achievement that it is, being selected as top of your sport in your country.

To win an Olympic Gold medal is the stuff of dreams. Winning any medal is, but Gold is the top of the pile. It means you are the best athlete in the world, who has the capability to perform at the highest level, on demand, on that one occasion each four years. It is recognition and reward for being able to manage yourself to achieve a peak performance when it counts, better than anyone else. Performances the days, weeks, months or even years before or after matter less than when Olympic medals are at stake. Get it right and you become an indellible part of your sport's history.

Olympic Gold is the biggest prize in triathlon, here is why:

1. They come around once every four years, not just year-in, year-out, and so it is a very select group who own the 24 Olympic triathlon medals awarded since 2000. Rare items have a high market value, and so it is for Olympic gold.

2. The Olympics represent more than just being a race. Their history goes back thousands of years - and the modern Olympics since 1896 - which is part of the honour of participating, let along winning. Unfortunately commercialism has touched the Olympics, but their significance is still great.

3. The Olympics are country vs country, not just athletes as individuals. Athletes represent their country, which draws attention and support from people in the street. Things that draw such broad-based attention demand greater prestige and acclaim. So it is with an Olympic gold medal.

Trends in Triathlon Performances

Another article for www.firstoffthebike.com

An age old debate in sporting circles is how would the stars of past eras go in today's competition, whether it's Don Bradman in a skill based sport like cricket, or Emil Zatopek in an endurance sport like running. Would they have risen to where the performance bar is now, or just be consigned as "also rans" amogst the hordes in each sport? It makes for great bar room debate.

The history of triathlon is becoming long enough that we are able to have the same debates, about the likes of the "Big Four" at their peak in the 80's - plus Mike Pigg, Erin Baker, etc - through to the stars of the 90's - Spencer Smith, Simon Lessing, Paula Newby Fraser and Emma Carney to name a few - and the recent crop of athletes who shape our current performance expectations. The one thing we have as a tangible measuring stick is race times over defined distances and courses…even though there is such variability in courses and conditions around the world, and over the years.

So, where are the performance trends heading in triathlons and what effect are tactics having on race results, and the times posted? You could write a thesis on this topic, but I'm going to try keeping this a bit briefer!!

An obvious place to start is with IM Hawaii, on a course that has been largely the same for nearly 30 years (apart from changes in T2 location). The men's 15 year old race record was broken last year, which even allowing for variable conditions in that period, is a very long time, especially in a young sport like triathlon which has benefitted from many technical advances designed to improve performance. The women's race record was broken a couple of years earlier after standing for a similar period of time.

Were the athletes of the 90's really that good (ignoring any suspicions about some of those performances)?...or conversly, has there been such little improvement in standard?? Perhaps athletes from the 90's were over achievers at IM racing, even though the status and prestige - and competitiveness - of a Kona title has increased exponentially since then, which often drives performance standards. There have fast conditions at Kona several times in the last decade - '06, '11 (at least) - and even the other years didn't stop Chrissie Wellington from breaking the women's record, so you could say the argument about conditions affecting performances is a moot point.

Many will say that changes in tactics have affected IM performance times and that the bike leg, in particular, is much more of a cat and mouse affair with the race being won on the run. This is a fair argument as it seems in past eras there was perhaps a little more of a purist, time-trail approach to racing, and with a smaller number of pros in contention, breaking away was "easier" to do compared to now, where the bike leg draws comparisons to aspects of bike racing (albeit without the bunch sprint finish!). The women's race does still bear some resemblance to the "old days", so perhaps it is the size of the respective pro fields that has the most bearing on race tactics, and subsequently race times. This would also account for the smaller gaps in the men's field in Hawaii, at least, whereas record breaking performances generally tend to see one person way off the front.

Away from Hawaii there are few IM courses that are unchanged over the last 20+ years to allow comparison of times. An exception came in 2011 where in the space of a month the Challenge Roth record and IM World Record* were smashed. These were clearly outstanding performances and featured a solo performance in each case, which is the same way Chrissie has gone about each of her many record breaking results. An * is needed to denote unverified courses, which is a blemish against many IM events.

So I think we could say that in IM racing the depth of competition - more so in the men's field, at present - has impacted the way the races are run and won, and the subsequent times being posted, with many results from the 90's still being very respectible - and even fast - by today's standards. It often takes someone like a Chrissie Wellington to motivate a general shift upwards of performances, which we are seeing more consistently in the women's ranks, in races that are more break away performances rather than featuring head-to-head tactics.

Moving to shorter events, and IM 70.3 for a moment, the performance trend here is a clear upwards with race records being broken on a regular basis. However, there is even more variability in courses for these events, there is no clear "world record" time to compare to, and the relatively recent creation of the "IM 70.3" brand has seen an explosion in the number of these races that are contested, so in some ways these events are a newer phenomonon and are still establishing a baseline standard for comparison.

ITU racing has perhaps seen the most dramatic improvement in performance in recent years, although this is hard to quanity in the same way as long course. Scott Molina, who won countless short-course races in his career in the 80's, had a track PB 10,000 of 30:xx min, and although he raced in a non-drafting era that is now the time the top-10 are running off the bike in World Triathlon Series races. Even looking to the Olympic debut of triathlon in 2000, the winning run time was about 31:00 min…a time that might get top-20 these days. In the women's side, the last 3-4 years, in particular, has seen a dramatic improvement in run times…although women like Emma Carney set a high standard in the 90's.

ITU racing is also seeing a real change in the dynamic of how races unfold, where it is no longer simply a matter of keeping in the swim pack, tucking in during the ride and running fast…the last 2-3 years has evolved into being a swim race, bike race and run race in the same event, where any weakness is exposed and athletes spat out. The standard required is amazing, no more clearly illustrated by the attempt of Macca, 1997 ITU World Champion, to comeback and finding the scene very different to when he left it. Only a small number of notably athletes have been able to move with the changes, to literally re-invent themselves in order to keep up, let alone be competitive. Refer to Simon Whitfield as example.

The progression of performances varies between the different styles of triathlon, and while times tell a black-and-white story of how things have changed, it is only part of the story and it would be a hard argument to say that today's triathletes are not an evolutionary leap beyond the performances of their fore fathers…although there are some exceptions, of athletes who were ahead of their time and who's age old performances would still shake things up these days.