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.