0:02

Hold up. What was that? Boring.

0:05

No flavor. That was as bad

0:07

as those leftovers you ate all

0:09

week. Kiki palma hair. And it's

0:11

time to say hello to something

0:13

fresh and guilt-free. Hello Fresh. Jazz

0:16

up dinner with pecan-crusted chicken or

0:18

garlic butter shrimps can be. Now

0:20

that's music to my mouth. Hello

0:22

Fresh. Let's get this dinner party

0:24

started. Discover all the delicious possibilities

0:26

at hellofresh.com. The

0:38

Science of Sport podcast with sports

0:40

editor Mike Finch and sports scientist,

0:42

Professor Ross Tucker. So

0:55

welcome to another episode of the Science of

0:58

Sports. My name is Mike Finch and I'm

1:00

here with Professor Ross Tucker and our mediator.

1:02

Well, it's not really a mediator. I'm more

1:04

of an organizer of our discourse channel, Gareth

1:07

Davies, who's been with us a couple of

1:09

times already in the last couple of months.

1:12

And today we're going to be talking about

1:14

some of the many subjects that have been

1:16

raising the interest of our discourse participants.

1:19

And if you want to know how to

1:21

get onto discourse, then you can

1:23

easily do it by just going onto our

1:25

Patreon channel, which is patreon.com and look

1:27

for the Science of Sport podcast. You

1:30

then just with a small

1:32

donation get involved in supporting our podcast. It's

1:34

not really that much. You can do three

1:36

different levels. And then once

1:38

you have your Patreon membership sorted

1:40

out, you can then get onto our discourse channel.

1:42

All the links are there on our Patreon site.

1:45

So then you can check out some of the

1:47

many subjects that are happening on our discourse channel

1:49

at the moment. And there are many, and we

1:51

will touch on a few of them with some

1:53

themes throughout the podcast today. And hopefully

1:56

we will be able to bring some

1:58

more discussion around. them. A big thank you

2:01

to all of our discourse members. I think

2:03

we've got a nice every week it kind

2:05

of grows more and more Gareth. I mean

2:07

it seems like the conversations are becoming a

2:09

little bit more animated and

2:11

some of the stuff there's a couple of agitators in

2:13

there which is kind of what you want on a

2:17

discourse channel isn't it? I wouldn't go

2:19

as far as agitators to be honest

2:21

with you. There's differences of opinion perhaps

2:25

but no there hasn't been any

2:27

real issues. Ross

2:30

jumped in the other day to try to explain

2:33

the difference between widespread

2:35

and systematic doping. We're

2:40

up over 500 members now so

2:42

you're getting lots of different opinions from around the

2:44

world. One thing I was

2:46

saying to Ross is I love the

2:48

way that there's like a cycle

2:50

to the discussions because you

2:53

go to bed and of course then the other

2:55

side of the world is waking up and adding

2:57

their opinions and you wake up and see a

2:59

load of more and as Ross said it gets

3:01

a bit overwhelming sometimes when you try to follow

3:03

four threads. Try to do the reading in between

3:05

to find out a little bit about it. It's

3:07

almost exhausting at times but really enjoying it. Well

3:10

I actually don't know how you guys managed to do

3:12

it because I know you both got day jobs as

3:14

a Vire and I know there's a lot of stuff

3:17

and if you go on to a discourse channel I

3:19

know you're both contributing a lot to some of the

3:21

discussions so thank you for that and for those of

3:23

you want some of the insights from both these two

3:25

and the many experts and I think that's what's important

3:27

on our discourse channel isn't there there's a lot of

3:29

people in there in the very high levels of sport

3:31

that are contributing towards the discussion but you don't have

3:33

to be those kind of people either you can just

3:35

have a good opinion and have an interest in sports

3:38

science and I think you'll get a lot out of

3:40

that discourse channel as well so lots to get

3:42

excited about. Ross have you what's kind of

3:44

caught your eye on discourse recently? I know

3:46

we're going to talk about specific subjects but

3:48

what's been your general thoughts around our discourse channel

3:51

at the moment? Yeah there's a couple of threads

3:53

that I think are interesting there's one on the

3:55

science of the taper where Someone posted. but

3:57

do I really need to taper? and those of

3:59

you. They're listening. That's not an animal with

4:01

a long snapper taped with he. Is

4:04

so when you modify your training in

4:06

the last few weeks before a race

4:08

in order to the cover because training

4:10

makes you fit but it also makes

4:12

you fatigued and the balance between the

4:14

training, lead and recovery is what then

4:16

optimizers performance and say that was initiated

4:18

on that discourse for hims and then

4:21

the number of people gems in with

4:23

some pretty technical support and thoughts and

4:25

advice. Gerald is always great value. Kevin

4:27

Macleod as well as Grande Valley said

4:29

ecraser really good one and says me

4:31

that there is a lot of alien

4:33

discourse for people who want good insights

4:35

on training and then a similar one

4:37

which I think will actually touch on

4:39

a little more. Today's someone he alistair

4:41

the name of the person he posted

4:44

about. Being. Around and trying

4:46

to prepare for subsidy Madison sense of pretty

4:48

good runner. Who. Then is trying

4:50

to integrate and but a cycling and has

4:52

noticed that the heart rate is so different

4:54

from the sacking to the running and in

4:56

that kicks off the same kind of conversation

4:58

with a lot of people in explain why

5:00

that might be and what he might try

5:02

and several assess good as their seven good

5:04

because it says me that we've got goods,

5:07

insightful applied thinkers and you'll get a lot

5:09

of catching valley on and says you use

5:11

it right I think. It

5:13

is something it we want to do in

5:15

the future and tapering be a good as

5:18

it is abide. I saw have the day

5:20

exactly is quite a good did I. It's

5:22

difficult to do that research because like what's

5:24

the control group press be Take a group

5:26

of elite athletes or even sub elites have

5:29

trained for three months, six months for mass

5:31

and or big cycling events and then you

5:33

try modify the training but the same people

5:35

can ever recreate that without the type of

5:37

say youths who has comparing different people in

5:40

a situation where the final performance, the mass

5:42

and time with a psychic. performance is

5:44

variable anyway and see trying to find

5:46

a signal in quite a lot a

5:48

noise difficult studies to dates but is

5:51

it there is a bets and it's

5:53

definitely worth exploring even they're stuck a

5:55

lot of you listening to this will

5:57

use online apps and programs that calculates

6:00

does this incidentally, it calculates your

6:02

current fitness and it

6:04

also calculates your chronic load and the

6:06

ratio or the difference between those is

6:08

your fatigue or recovery state. So

6:11

if your last seven days are higher than

6:13

your last seven, four weeks let's say or

6:15

six weeks then in theory you're

6:17

loading the system. If your last seven days

6:19

are easier than the previous six in

6:22

theory you're recovering. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah

6:25

and so all these things provide those metrics and I think it

6:27

would be quite useful to explore that actually at some points. I

6:30

use that Strava fitness thing as a bit of a gauge.

6:32

I know it's not terribly accurate but it is a pretty

6:34

good gauge. But the way you use it. I know if

6:36

I'm on 80 I'm in good shape and I'm on 60

6:38

now. Yeah but okay so

6:40

here's the thing about a taper is you can get to

6:42

80 simply by doing three weeks

6:44

of really hard like five days a week, three

6:46

hours on the bike you'll get Yeah.

6:50

And you'll be hell of a tired and you won't perform. For

6:52

sure. So the question about the taper is what

6:54

do you need to be while recovered? Because

6:57

you can get to 90 and then you got a taper you'll

6:59

drop to 80 or you get to

7:01

80 you got 70 which is better 70 fresh

7:03

or 80 fatigue. Well there's

7:05

also that recovery score so at the end of the

7:07

day you want to be recovered and that's exactly and

7:10

that's the trade-off right that's the balance that you're constantly

7:12

trying to do with the taper. So yeah so you

7:14

can sign up if you're not already on discourse and

7:16

you can read people's thoughts on that but we'll certainly

7:19

put it on our list of subjects to discussing

7:21

more depth on the show. A

7:23

big thank you to Ross who did our

7:26

last podcast Flying Solo the one we interviewed

7:28

Jamie Whitfield and I wasn't able to

7:30

do it because I was actually at the Absacab Epic

7:33

mountain bike race so working as an announcer but

7:35

I listened to that podcast and I'm still listening to

7:37

it because I kind of listen to it and I

7:39

think I'm missing something here I've forgotten what

7:41

he said then I go back a bit so I kind of

7:44

listened and listened and re-listened to the thing many times and it

7:46

really is I mean I know

7:48

we've spoken to people and

7:52

I certainly think that podcast in particular made

7:54

a big impression because it really is really practical

7:57

and it debunks a lot of the

7:59

hype around. on keto diets and what

8:01

the reality is and based on science.

8:04

And it's a subject that is so emotive

8:07

because there are people that are massively focused

8:09

on keto and they will sway by it.

8:11

And certainly they are convincing. But

8:13

when you get back to the science, that podcast

8:15

really does lay down the science in a very

8:17

real way. I'm glad I was worried it might

8:20

be a little bit too technical. Not at all

8:22

mechanistic. Because Jamie and I both

8:24

love a bit of the detail, the

8:26

molecular explanations. But he was very direct

8:28

and enjoyed it. And incidentally, as

8:30

well, I'm not going

8:32

to say it, as thanks,

8:34

let's call it for doing it. We

8:37

give all our guests access to discourse.

8:39

And Jamie very kindly went beyond the

8:41

call of duty and then started answering

8:43

additional questions on discourse in that discussion.

8:45

So there's another little value out for

8:47

you. There you go. So look

8:49

back on that. That's our podcast, the one just before we did

8:51

now. Have a look for it. It's

8:53

certainly worth listening

8:55

to, particularly if you're involved in endurance sport.

8:58

So talking about endurance sport, let's kick

9:00

off our subjects for today. And it's

9:02

spring marathon season with a lot of

9:04

focus on Olympic selection. And there's a

9:06

couple of discussions, just having a brief

9:09

wrap up of the of the top marathons we

9:11

had Tokyo, which Benson Kibruco from Kenny won in

9:13

202. Women's race was

9:15

won by Tsutsume Kubeide, the if he

9:17

opened in 215. So a

9:20

quick palm there. Boston, a very good race to watch,

9:22

as it is usual, because they don't have the pace

9:24

it is and it's a I love the course and

9:26

I think it's a classic racist course where you

9:28

don't have the flat,

9:31

flat out course. It's always not not necessary a

9:33

fast time, but always a good race. So Sisa

9:35

Lemma was the Ethiopian was the winner there in

9:37

206 and Helena Berry in

9:39

222 in the women's race.

9:41

And then London, which just happened a

9:44

few days ago, Alexander, Patisa, the Kenyan

9:46

204 won there and Kienenisa Bikili was

9:48

second. 41 years old, breaking the

9:50

world record for the Masters. So

9:52

quite amazingly in Paris, Tsutsume Kienen

9:54

winning the women's race in 216. Women's

9:58

only world record there as well. So London. really

10:00

the stand out race in many ways

10:02

of the spring marathon so far. For the women. For

10:05

the women. That's to some extent. I thought the men's

10:07

race was really mediocre but then again I hardly watched

10:09

it thanks to the BBC. Yeah, we'll get onto that.

10:11

I mean I don't know what happened in the men's

10:13

race. For all I know there was a Bermuda Triangle

10:15

along the Thames River that swallowed half the field but

10:18

we missed it because no one thought to show it.

10:20

It was unbelievable. But yeah,

10:22

it was an interesting one because I didn't

10:25

ever in any of the races get the

10:27

impression I was seeing heavyweights race each other.

10:29

I get the impression they're avoiding each other

10:31

maybe. There was definitely some tactical

10:34

race selections going on. I know

10:36

the Ethiopians tried to get themselves

10:38

into different races because

10:40

the feeling was that if they were all in

10:42

one, only the winner would be selected

10:45

for Paris. So the strongest Ethiopian

10:47

group ended up being split between

10:49

London and Boston. So

10:51

the guy who won London was training mates

10:54

with Tamara Tola who ended up, I don't

10:56

know, being swallowed by that Bermuda Triangle in

10:58

London. So yeah,

11:00

I didn't find it... I

11:02

don't know, is there something a bit... Something

11:05

about the majesty of the... Excuse

11:08

me, maybe that's a bad term, but the

11:10

grandiose way that London is run, it always

11:12

feels like you're running through a proper big

11:14

city marathon where it is. I mean Boston

11:17

I guess to some extent is also like

11:19

that lovely crowd to see along the side

11:21

of the road. Properly deep. But

11:23

there's something about London which I love and

11:26

I think I've always appreciated the way it

11:28

finishes. So I guess I maybe have

11:30

a bias towards London. And the women's race had four women

11:32

racing for a world record with 300 metres to go. So

11:36

that's how to top that. So the women's race in

11:38

London was exceptional. But the men's race,

11:40

I don't know what it was because... And

11:43

then in Boston it was the same incidentally. In

11:45

Boston, Lemma won that race. He was... When

11:48

I started watching it just after halfway, the

11:50

only question was, okay, I suppose for a

11:52

while, could they catch him? Incredible. But he

11:54

was minutes ahead. Yeah. So

11:56

we had a team together at 35K and then the most

11:59

notable thing... about that race was that they ran 15.05 for 5Ks.

12:04

And then they finished at three minutes at K as well. So Helena

12:06

Veri ran the last seven and a bit K at

12:08

21 minutes, which is the fastest

12:10

5K split ever in a marathon. And

12:13

if I had to bet on who's winning Paris,

12:16

because of the nature of the course and the way that

12:18

she can do that, I can't think of anyone who can

12:20

finish a marathon like that. And then

12:22

Tokyo was notable, I think, for where Kipchogi

12:24

came, which is another subject we can get

12:26

onto. I don't know what Gareth's thoughts were

12:29

on overall marathon. I know he didn't watch

12:31

London with me, along with me, so. Well,

12:35

I sort of watched it along with you

12:37

because I messaged you to say, are you

12:39

watching this? And I didn't realise you were

12:41

actually on the same feed as me until

12:43

you said, yeah, this isn't great coverage, is

12:45

it? Because there's two, at

12:48

least in the UK, you can watch

12:50

different feeds. So you could watch the mass

12:54

participation of the runners, or

12:56

you can watch the elite side. You choose to just watch

12:58

the elite side with the commentary. So obviously, I chose the

13:00

elite side and was watching that. And

13:04

I understand it. It must be very difficult

13:06

to actually commentate for two hours of a

13:08

marathon and keep it interesting and fresh sort

13:10

of thing for any sort of endurance events.

13:12

That's probably part of

13:14

the problem with having media

13:17

coverage of endurance events is to

13:19

the non-real enthusiast, I suppose it can

13:21

get kind of boring. But

13:24

I noticed at the time, it

13:26

was when there were two leaders weren't

13:29

there in the men's race, and

13:31

there were a couple of British athletes

13:33

going for the qualifying times. And

13:35

I understand why they were going back to the British athletes a

13:37

lot. But at the time, there was

13:39

a split between the two male leaders, right

13:42

at the end of the last, well, in

13:44

the last mile, I think. And

13:47

I said, well, actually, I won't include the language I put

13:49

in my message to you. I said, it's a decisive move

13:51

in the men's race, but we missed it because we were

13:53

watching the camel. And

13:56

at the time, there was a split in the race, and

13:58

we were watching two people dressed as a camel. in

14:02

the mass participation, which is fine. And as

14:04

you said, that camel, and like Bekali, is

14:06

trying to finish his 10th marathon and well

14:08

worthy of the coverage, because it

14:10

raised money whereas Bekali did not, which

14:13

is fine. And I absolutely get

14:15

that most people do want to watch

14:18

the fun side of the marathon, the charity, the

14:20

really good stories. But when you're

14:22

on the elite racing feed, it

14:25

is frustrating to miss that part of the race. And

14:30

like I say, I do understand why they

14:32

focused on the Brits because they focused on

14:34

a couple of the female

14:36

Brit finishers. But again, we were

14:38

missing so much of what

14:41

was actually going on in the rest of the

14:43

race, because they were just staying on them

14:45

too long. So that

14:48

was my thoughts on the London part, just the media part, so

14:50

I get that bit out of the way. I

14:52

genuinely think so. I don't think that whoever directed

14:54

it, because you know, it works in OBV and

14:56

I've also done a bit of commentary at SABC,

14:58

but Mike, Mike's done more. And

15:01

you know, the broadcast setup, there's a director who

15:03

basically calls for which shots are shot. The director

15:05

at London has never watched a marathon in his

15:07

life or her life. Yeah, based on

15:09

what was happening. Like, you know, when

15:12

things are going to happen. And even

15:14

even when they do, like you've got camera on it,

15:16

right? It's not like you've got to send one motorbike

15:18

back and forth. There's a camera on them. So

15:20

just show it as if it's live, but show what

15:23

happened a minute before. It's not, that's

15:25

not difficult tech. It's called

15:27

a replay. And

15:29

show split screens. That's not complicated

15:31

tech. They had it in Boston,

15:33

the whole race is basically a split screen,

15:35

which makes it quite difficult because you've got to

15:37

like really get close to your your phone.

15:40

But at least you see it in London. I don't

15:42

know, like this recovers in London with something from 2001.

15:46

Yeah, the commentators weren't great either, were they?

15:48

They weren't really giving much insight. I know. There

15:50

was one point he said about I think

15:52

it was the British friend, he said he's still

15:54

holding his bottle. That's fantastic. And I was

15:56

thinking what he's holding a bottle. I'm

16:00

excited really about it. There

16:02

were a few things that they

16:05

said. I know that the two

16:07

male leaders passed a female

16:10

runner who obviously was pretty

16:13

well accomplished to be

16:15

at that stage in the race. And as they passed

16:17

her they said, she'll

16:19

have been glad to see Bikale in real life. I

16:22

thought, how patronizing is that? That's

16:25

really made her age. She's probably on for like a 2.30 finish

16:28

or something. And that's made her

16:30

do things like that. It was like they

16:32

had the work experience kids in almost. Sounds

16:37

like I was glad to miss it.

16:40

No, if you'd watched it you still would have

16:42

missed it. The thing about London that they do

16:44

and it gets them the world record for women

16:46

in a women's only race is they start the

16:49

women's race 20 to 25 minutes in front of

16:51

the men's race, which is cool and all. But

16:53

then it means that

16:55

the third, fourth, fifth and

16:57

particularly the first and second British runners

17:00

are finishing when the men

17:02

are between 30 and 35. And you know that's

17:04

when a men's race is breaking up because they put

17:06

the pace setters out to go to 25 and

17:09

then the pace setters go and either the

17:11

action kicks off right away or they play

17:14

tactical cagedness for 5K and then it

17:16

happens. So London always, every

17:18

single year without fail, gets themselves

17:20

into this mess where they

17:22

end up showing us and like well done,

17:25

you've qualified for the Olympics with a 227

17:27

or 228, I remember in the past, but

17:30

you finished six or sevens and meanwhile there's

17:33

a 203, 202 happening behind you. And

17:35

the frustrating thing is you can do both because they

17:38

got two streams in England. They

17:40

can show the mass race and they

17:42

can use that to cover the local athletes. And

17:45

then the elite feed, which you know is going globally,

17:47

can be the one that's dedicated to the front

17:49

of the race or you just split the screen. So

17:52

none of these problems are insurmountable and they

17:54

haven't been insurmountable for 20 years. Yet

17:57

they've never done anything about it and it makes me think.

18:00

they sit in their meeting planning the coverage

18:02

and they don't understand who they're actually

18:04

speaking to. Because if

18:07

they were catering to marathon watches, they

18:09

wouldn't deliver a product like that. But

18:12

ostensibly it is to marathon watches. So I

18:15

don't know, I just miss the audience in

18:17

my opinion. I think perhaps the BBC have

18:19

lost so many sports, so much of their

18:21

coverage to the broadcasters that they don't really

18:24

even know how to put on that really

18:26

good show anymore.

18:28

They've lost the experience perhaps in

18:30

the back room and everything. And

18:33

they've just sort of flown through a bit

18:35

when it comes to these big events. They

18:38

just don't have the experience there anymore perhaps.

18:40

Because I noticed, did you see that

18:43

message I sent you about the T100,

18:45

the triathlon, the new triathlon? Oh,

18:47

they're using the heart rates. They're issuing the

18:50

heart rates of the athlete. I thought that

18:52

was really interesting. At least they're trying to

18:54

make endurance sport interesting, something to follow. And

18:56

it gives a commentary, something to talk about,

18:58

which is, okay, it might be wildly inaccurate,

19:00

but it's something.

19:02

You can see that they've thought about

19:04

the problem, whereas clearly the BBC probably

19:06

haven't. No, I agree.

19:09

Yeah, I mean, I think television commentary

19:11

is a strange thing because sometimes you

19:13

think, well, maybe I'm critical of, whether

19:16

it's television coverage of athletics or cycling or

19:18

anything, you think, well, surely they can get

19:20

a bit commentators on this. And obviously there's

19:22

a bigger picture and there's a producer and

19:24

there's an organizer that's got a

19:26

certain singular focus. But I'm always quite stunned

19:28

by some of the commentators

19:31

who think this person shouldn't really be

19:33

commentating an event. And I think there's

19:35

a particular person who's talking, which I

19:37

find absolutely annoying within, and I'm

19:39

not even going to say the name, but

19:42

that person still is often on television as

19:44

a TV commentator. And I never understand how.

19:47

When I had my very brief

19:49

stint, which ended in flames,

19:53

we used to work together a bit, I think we

19:55

did. We compensated when you used to play games and

19:57

give each other challenging words, try and insert into our

19:59

common. just to spice

20:01

it up because that was two oceans and

20:04

that was a seven hour broadcast. Imagine finding

20:06

something to say in the first hour or

20:08

the sixth hour when you're watching the backmark

20:10

has come through its halfway point, you know.

20:14

But the big thing that was glaringly

20:16

lacking was feedback. No one was saying,

20:18

and it was basic stuff like did you modulate

20:20

your voice and did you capture

20:22

the emotion of the moment or did you just

20:24

drone on? And I actually ended up posting

20:27

something on my website back at the time saying

20:29

please send me feedback even if it's to insult

20:31

me and criticize. And

20:33

one very kind reader actually sent me

20:36

quite constructive feedback. He said,

20:38

this is what you can do to improve and I never

20:40

got the chance but I'm sure it would have made a

20:42

difference. But if

20:45

we're sitting as viewers saying that commentary

20:48

just isn't adding value then surely someone

20:50

else is going, we're spending seven

20:52

figures on this. We've got the broadcast rights

20:54

deal for this plus four other marathoners that

20:57

we're going to use these people for. Let's

21:00

at least think about trying to improve them. You'd

21:02

think it would be an obvious thing to try and

21:04

figure out what the audience is thinking but no one

21:07

seems to care. It's

21:09

weird. Yeah. Yeah. So

21:11

just putting in perspective when I was looking at the results

21:13

of London I just remembered to

21:15

look up Calvin Kipton's performances over the last

21:17

couple of years. I mean he won the

21:20

London Marathon in 2023 and he broke the

21:22

course record by 16 seconds to 135 and

21:24

of course he went on to then do

21:26

the two hours and 35 seconds at Chicago

21:29

in 2023 and obviously for

21:31

those of you following athletics know that he died

21:33

on a car crash early this year but it

21:35

shows you what a remarkable athlete he was and

21:37

I really you feel the sadness really to

21:39

understand that if he was still alive,

21:42

how far could he have taken this? Could he be

21:44

in that athlete that would have broken two hours? At

21:47

the moment it looks like there aren't many

21:49

athletes in fact right now I don't think

21:52

there's anybody who's capable of getting below that

21:54

two hour mark. There was he realistically thought

21:56

like he could actually break two hours potentially

21:59

at Chicago. That's right. Yeah, I

22:01

think part of my being underwhelmed with London

22:03

was that, you know, they went

22:05

through the men's race went through halfway faster than Kiptum

22:07

did last year. And the winners

22:09

ended up two and a half minutes slower. Yeah,

22:11

because Kiptum broke 60 minutes for that second half.

22:14

Unreal, and then he did the

22:16

same thing when he broke the world record. In London,

22:18

only two guys got even within a minute of their

22:21

of the front group anyway got within a minute

22:23

of their halfway split. There was one athlete, I

22:25

don't know why I finished to be honest with

22:27

you, but he initially going to look up his

22:30

splits here because you've never seen such a preposterous

22:32

pattern. His name was Seifatura from

22:34

Ethiopia, 61, 29 at halfway, and then 94, 51 for the

22:36

second half.

22:40

So he finished in 2006. Presumably

22:43

there was some contractual reason or prize money

22:45

reason for him to finish. Because why would

22:47

you suffer for an hour and 34 minutes?

22:49

Whereas even you know, the

22:51

winner and 61,

22:53

29 and 62, 30. So that's a,

22:55

that's a one minute positive split, which

22:58

is for these guys, like that's a

23:00

failed race. Negative split, isn't it? No,

23:02

negative. It's the second half faster. Right.

23:04

Okay. And so, but that's

23:07

almost like a failed race, but him and

23:09

Vakali, the only people who finished anything

23:12

like remotely in the top five

23:14

from their front group, Tallah, Atunawu,

23:17

sorry, not as, Mangesh, Maiteka, Gabri

23:19

Selassie, Wilder, all did not finish

23:22

off that pace and Kipton broke 60

23:25

off that pace. So it shows you the difference

23:27

between Kipton and the race. Yeah,

23:29

it does though. It makes

23:32

you realize that we potentially were robbed of a

23:34

chance to see us a legitimate sub two hour

23:36

marathon in a big race with Kipton's passing away

23:38

to the CS. They are very sad. That's just

23:41

one of the, sorry, there's one other thing there.

23:44

The men's coverage then again, other races done so you

23:46

can do what you want, I suppose. But Emil Kares,

23:49

who was the first Brit to finish and qualify for

23:51

the Olympics ran a very

23:53

measured race. Like I would think he might have even done

23:55

a negative split. I haven't seen his first and second half,

23:58

but his coach subsequently at

24:00

his training on Let's Run, it's an

24:02

Italian coach called Renato Canova, and

24:04

one of our discourse members has very productively

24:06

and helpfully turned it into a spreadsheet and

24:08

a track of exactly how many miles at

24:11

what pace he did in the months leading

24:13

up to London. So if you want insights

24:15

into how an elite athlete is training, go

24:17

on to discourse and have a look for

24:19

the topic that covers Emil

24:21

Caris and you'll see people interpreting

24:23

and discussing it. It's really interesting. That's very

24:25

interesting. I'm going to have a look at

24:27

that. Yeah, interesting. The first thing that's come

24:30

out of that, of course, is with the Paris

24:32

Olympics now looming just four months away, what

24:35

the Kennens are going to do in terms of

24:37

choosing their Olympic team. Now, as

24:39

you can imagine, when you have an absolute

24:41

dearth of talent in

24:44

the Kennen athletics, then you are struggling to

24:46

pick a top three. So they've announced that

24:48

they're going to have a short list of

24:50

team members so far at the Tom Vosting's

24:52

podcast. They've got to now reduce this down

24:54

to three members for the women and three

24:57

members for the men. Kipchoge is

24:59

a natural list and there was some discussion

25:01

on discourse as to whether he should be

25:03

allowed to automatically take his

25:05

place. He's obviously going for, you know,

25:07

what's it, three Olympic goals now? So

25:10

going for his third one and, you know, he's not

25:12

as good as he used to be, but you can

25:14

never count him out. So there was some discussion. And

25:16

Gareth, I mean, your thoughts

25:18

on Kipchoge? I mean, it's

25:21

difficult to pick a Kenyan team where you

25:23

don't pick Kipchoge. Yeah, Kevin

25:25

McQuaid brought this up on discourse. It could be

25:27

in credit for that one because it's a really

25:29

interesting thought is do we

25:31

take somebody or do the Kenyans take

25:33

somebody with experience and knowledge of what

25:35

it takes? Or do they take

25:38

somebody with, you know, that better form and perhaps more

25:40

hunger for success? So

25:42

has you earned that right to do

25:44

it? Because they've got five preliminary

25:49

runners. They've chosen, they've got

25:51

to cut it down to three. injury.

26:01

So it's almost like

26:03

it's a sentiment for Kipchoge against

26:07

perhaps better runners. So

26:10

the thing is that I think it's

26:12

Kipchoge's coach is actually on the selection

26:15

team, well I think he's one of

26:17

the coaches for the Kenyan team, which

26:21

means he's probably quite likely to go. I

26:23

think they'll take him anyway just for the

26:25

name. It's such

26:30

a big occasion for him. Will he be overwhelmed

26:32

on a day is another thing. I don't think so.

26:34

I think he's got so much experience

26:38

of running the breaking tool when all the

26:40

focus is on him anyway. But I'll be

26:42

honest, I don't think he's probably

26:44

winning Paris even if they do take him. But

26:46

what it got me thinking about was these

26:50

countries can only take three athletes. It

26:54

almost feels like the Olympics

26:57

is not taking all the best athletes or

26:59

having all the best athletes in the world

27:01

because of that limit. Because the Kenyans have

27:03

so many runners that could be

27:06

involved. And then you've got, I'm not going to

27:08

say lesser countries, that sounds wrong, but there are

27:10

countries who will be sending people who

27:13

might not. I think they've got

27:15

to hit the qualifying time to

27:17

be represented there. Or do they

27:20

start looking further down if they

27:22

can't fill their quota. Because

27:26

you're going to get a lot of, I don't want to

27:28

use the word lesser, what's the word? Not

27:30

quite as accomplished. Not as accomplished. Not

27:34

as accomplished runners as the Olympics, which is

27:36

great. That's their moment too. But it's not

27:38

actually the cream of the

27:40

crop, is it? Because you're not taking, you could have,

27:43

okay, admittedly it would be full of Kenyans. But I

27:45

was wondering if you could have a wild card system

27:47

where if a country can't get qualifiers in, then

27:52

their spots would be given up to faster

27:54

athletes, perhaps if they've hit something even better

27:56

than the Olympic qualifiers. So

27:58

if the Olympic qualifying is taking 20811

28:00

I think it is. If you can run

28:03

under 205 then you get an automatic

28:05

slot if there are slots available because there

28:07

are really slower runners. That's

28:09

my thought. It just seems a little bit, since

28:12

I looked into it a little bit, that we're not getting the

28:14

cream of the crop in the Olympics and that's what the Olympics

28:16

is meant to be, isn't it? I'll

28:19

tell you why they'll never do that because part

28:21

of the reason for capping it is to make

28:24

it relevant and engaging and interesting to other countries.

28:26

Because otherwise it would look like the World Cross Country Championship.

28:28

I don't know if you saw that. The women's race Kenya

28:30

were in the front six of the race. I

28:33

think they let it all

28:35

sort itself out for the first lap, 2K, and

28:38

then the six Kenyan women just go to the front of the

28:40

race and it's done. Over. Then you

28:42

start saying, where's the first European going to come?

28:44

It's 23rd or whatever the case is.

28:47

The thing with three Kenyans and three Ethiopians is

28:49

you then go into it as a South African

28:51

for instance and you say, I've got a

28:53

chance here. If there's eight Kenyans

28:55

and 90 Ethiopians, you don't even

28:58

go. That's the problem, right? Yeah,

29:00

I see what you're saying. But if you're that

29:02

South African runner, you don't stand the chance anyway,

29:05

really, unless you can run. No,

29:08

because four people can have a

29:10

bad day. So

29:13

Baldini could win the marathon in essence. Remember

29:15

the Italian that won it there? If they'd

29:18

let eight Kenyans and anti-theobans and

29:22

he's not winning that marathon, I'll put my

29:25

flag in the ground to say that. Similarly, we've

29:27

seen American medal winners at the Olympic

29:29

marathon not wrap because I think wrap

29:32

was probably in that conversation against

29:34

all the Kenyans. But I

29:37

think you go in and you say there are

29:39

eight athletes who can run two six, two,

29:41

okay, these days in women's marathon, eight athletes

29:44

who can run two 18 or faster. I'm

29:46

a two 24 on no chance. But

29:49

if there's only a few, you say one

29:51

injured, one goes out too fast. I'm

29:53

in the chance now. I'm in the

29:55

conversation. So they keep it down

29:57

in order to make it flatter. What's

30:01

the Olympics is about participation and

30:03

representation rather than always performance. They

30:05

do celebrate everybody in the

30:08

field whether they are going to be the

30:10

middleists or not. Yeah, but it's funny like

30:12

we could we've got our athletes who had

30:14

a stain right? What was the essay record?

30:16

224. Imagine looking at that and saying I'm

30:19

eight minutes behind. Yeah, she's not going to

30:21

feature. It's just again, she's a brilliant runner.

30:23

Yes. It's amazing to think. And if you

30:25

and if you stack that race with like

30:27

Valencia, New York when she ran,

30:30

it wouldn't been the essay record. That was in Valencia. She

30:32

didn't even make the top 10. So

30:36

she'll have a better chance in Paris because

30:38

it is a slightly different course to the

30:40

normal flat routes we see from the top

30:42

runners. So the stronger runners might do better.

30:44

Maybe, but again, if you had 20 East

30:46

Africans, then you'd need 17 of them to

30:48

have a bad day. Yeah. What's a fail

30:50

to get them at a six max survival.

30:52

Yeah. But anyway, Kipchoge will go. They'll pick him

30:54

for sure. They'll never leave him out. But

30:57

once I think, and I say this now,

30:59

having just seen Bekeli proved me wrong. Once

31:02

the trajectory in a marathon starts to trend down,

31:04

it's very difficult to turn it around again. And

31:07

when you look at Kipchoge, even

31:10

in COVID, remember he lost that special COVID

31:12

London marathon, but that was exceptional circumstance. So

31:14

you can, okay, cool. Boston

31:16

last year, sixth Tokyo

31:18

this year, 10th. To me, that's

31:20

going the wrong way. And to turn that around enough

31:23

to win a medal in the Olympics is very difficult. And

31:26

so I agree with Gareth and many of you on discourse,

31:28

I cannot see him winning a medal. I

31:31

think he'll be there with 32k gone.

31:34

But when that race starts to get shaken up, then

31:36

the guys who can run two or three now will

31:39

be, hey, I just, it's not going to be. But

31:42

they won't, as you said, there won't be necessarily

31:44

that depth. And Kipchoge

31:46

is only, only 39. So he's younger

31:49

than Bekeli. Officially. Yeah. Well, depends what

31:51

you see there. But I mean, he,

31:53

remember Kipchoge was in the Olympics in

31:56

2004. So it's 20 years of Olympics.

32:00

Yeah, it's incredible. It's unreal. Yeah,

32:02

I wouldn't count him out to be honest. I think

32:04

he's got the experience and I think he's got the sort

32:07

of but it speaks to all around that speaks to

32:09

earlier points. Incidentally, if they were if there were 20 other

32:12

East Africans, then he's not winning a medal in

32:14

my years, but he's got a chance. Yeah, exactly.

32:16

So actually, he's the beneficiary of the capping himself

32:18

now for sure. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So let's

32:21

see what happens there. It's going to be an

32:23

interesting one to focus on. So

32:25

yeah, there's other sports incidentally just out of

32:27

interest where the same situation happens, right? Like

32:29

swimming, Australia and the USA could probably send

32:31

twice as many swimmers who'd make finals, but

32:34

then you wouldn't see as many from the

32:36

other countries. Cycling, Switzerland has this problem in

32:38

mountain biking, they could win two podiums worth

32:40

of medals. Yeah. Men and women.

32:42

In fact, they did win the last podium worth

32:44

of medals for the woman. So it's

32:47

a tough gig if you're the fourth or

32:49

fifth best mountain biker in Switzerland or the

32:51

fourth best freestyler in Australia or the US.

32:54

But then some of the Olympic stories that

32:56

we always remember is people like Eric the

32:58

eel. I was here from Ghana, Victoria, there

33:00

we go. And he was the skier. There

33:02

was the skier. Eddie the eagle. Eddie

33:05

the eagle. There we go. So that's about him.

33:07

I think it was called the eagle guy, that

33:09

movie. I can't remember. I

33:11

remember him. He was great. And let's not

33:13

forget. Okay, I take it back there. Yeah,

33:15

that was a terrible suggestion. That's why I'm

33:17

not on the Olympic committee. And

33:19

then of course, the Jamaican Bobsled team, I mean, they

33:22

made a movie out of that. So do you remember

33:24

that? There is a space for this. The best one

33:26

of all, and I can't remember his name, maybe Gareth

33:28

will find it now, was an Australian short track speed

33:30

skater. Was it

33:33

Bradbury? Someone like that. He

33:35

won gold, because everyone in front of him fell

33:37

over in the last corner. And

33:39

so he was the only guy made the finish line.

33:41

And he wasn't likely to. No, he was a complete

33:44

outsider. He wasn't. He wasn't Eddie the eagle and Eric

33:46

the eel levels of outsiderness. But it was like an

33:48

unbelievable moment where the two people

33:50

in front in racing for the win took

33:52

one another out and everyone behind him. And

33:55

he was so far behind. Okay, made the

33:57

final. So he was good. But he

33:59

was so far behind. that he came through in one

34:01

gold in that particular asset. That was in 2006 or

34:04

something. I thought it

34:10

was Bradbury or something. Stephen

34:12

Bradbury. You've got

34:14

to get out more. It was 2002 though in Salt

34:16

Lake City. I'll let

34:20

you off. So those stories are stuff that

34:22

kind of sticks in our mind. As much as we celebrate

34:24

the achievements of

34:30

all the best athletes, those are the legendary

34:32

stories that keep the Olympics alive and they

34:34

show the spirit of the events, which I

34:36

kind of agree with to some extent. And

34:38

it's country against country as opposed to athlete

34:40

against athlete. So you have the chance of

34:42

an outsider winning. You have the chance

34:44

of a country that might not normally have a

34:46

shoe in to be in the top level having

34:48

a chance. So I think it's always a

34:50

good thing. I'm trying to remember when Emma

34:52

Coburn won the steeplechase. Was that

34:54

an Olympic Games? I'm just trying to remember now. But

34:57

I think that was another. She was

34:59

a relative outsider, won one of the major

35:01

events. And I'm done with Olympics

35:03

or World Championships. But I

35:06

don't think she would have stood the same

35:08

chance if there'd been 15 East Africans there.

35:11

In fairness to her, she was at a peak. She

35:13

was very good. She

35:16

was good, absolutely. Yeah. That was

35:18

a World Championship by the way. It

35:20

was the World Championships. So maybe

35:22

not qualifying as much. There's

35:32

never been a faster or easier

35:35

way to start your weight loss

35:37

journey than with PlushCare. PlushCare accepts

35:39

most insurance plans and gives you

35:41

online access to board-certified physicians who

35:44

can prescribe FDA-approved weight loss medications

35:46

like Wigovi and Zepbound for those

35:48

who qualify. Take charge of your

35:50

health and speak with a board-certified

35:52

physician about a weight loss plan

35:55

that's right for you. Get started

35:57

today at plushcare.com/weight loss. That's plushcare.com/weight

35:59

loss. plushcare.com/weightloos.

36:12

I'm talking about track and field and

36:15

athletics and we've had

36:17

a few discussions about this in the past about where

36:19

the sports track and field in particular is around the

36:21

world and I think we all have our

36:23

own views on it and certainly for me as

36:26

somebody who used to absolutely love track

36:28

and field I don't get

36:30

as excited about it as I did do

36:32

maybe 10-15 years ago and I think to

36:34

some extent there is a lot of pressure

36:36

and that's not pressure that we're just saying

36:38

based on our opinions here that's quite obvious

36:41

that track and field as a global sport

36:43

is struggling to compete for eyeballs not only

36:45

in terms of television coverage but in terms

36:47

of sponsorship deals in terms of attracting

36:49

new talent into the sport you know you look

36:51

at sports like basketball

36:53

and American football that are

36:56

attracting really top athletes and

36:58

those athletes aren't going to track and field because it's

37:00

not as cool as it used to be and

37:03

I had the opportunity last year to go to

37:05

the world championships in Budapest and see the

37:08

kind of athletes that are

37:10

coming through into the track and field

37:12

space that are certainly right up in

37:15

terms of their performances but you feel up as

37:17

this pressure for them to create

37:19

hype and the reason why

37:21

I'm giving this background is that there's been a couple

37:23

of two announcements

37:25

recently, Michael Johnson who was the

37:28

multiple Olympic medalist and foreign-imutable record

37:30

holder for a

37:32

while and Barry Kahn who

37:34

is a sort of

37:37

event organizer, there are two new events Barry Kahn's

37:39

event is a what they call a

37:41

dual, in other words they're proposing that it's one

37:44

athlete versus another athlete over various distances and

37:46

then they have it over a

37:48

couple of days and then Michael Johnson hasn't given

37:50

specifics about his event but he's

37:52

suggesting that there's going to be an event in 2025 which

37:54

will be hyped

37:57

up, there'll be limited events, there'll be a chance for

37:59

this board to really get some recognition. So

38:01

I mean Gareth, I want to kick off

38:03

with you. What is your perception of track

38:06

and field? If you're looking at it from

38:08

a sports lover's perspective, do

38:10

you think it's struggling realistically? Well,

38:14

it was a world record last weekend, wasn't

38:16

it? Did you see it? No,

38:19

you've shaken your head because I think the plan

38:21

to break the pole vault world record. Oh, did

38:23

he break it again? Yeah, and she and men

38:25

in the first time in the league. But

38:29

your reaction says it all, that you haven't shared about

38:31

it. I should know that. And I

38:33

think the discus went the week before. And it

38:35

was actually a post I put on discos and

38:37

say, did anybody actually notice this? Because I didn't

38:39

notice for a few days that world records are

38:41

being broken and nobody seemed to know. And that

38:43

pretty much sums up athletics at the moment, don't

38:45

it? Or at least the field part of it.

38:48

Because there's just no eyes on it. Well,

38:52

that was the oldest world record in men's athletics, I

38:54

think. I think his father held the one before. I

39:01

don't think he was the

39:03

world record holder, but he was definitely the Olympic champion.

39:05

Yeah. Lithuanian fella. And the

39:07

video went around on social media a few

39:09

days before that. And I saw it

39:11

and I thought it was a practice session. Yeah,

39:14

it was just like in a field. I

39:18

almost replied and said that that's not a legit

39:20

world record because you can't break the world record

39:22

in training. It looked like a training session. Really?

39:24

It was unreal. I couldn't believe that it was

39:26

verified. But I suppose. And then

39:29

why did you think it was a training session

39:31

just because because it looked like there's people there.

39:33

Yeah, it looked like it was a discus cage

39:35

with a net and a guy walks in and

39:37

it's like a static camera. It's not like you

39:39

see a polished coverage on Diamond League. He

39:41

throws it. You can't even see the discus lands. So

39:45

someone's obviously been on the other end over

39:47

the horizon and 74 meters and something centimeters

39:49

later measured it. World record done.

39:51

OK. In a sanctioned event.

39:53

But there's nobody watching it. It is

39:55

a staged discus throw. Right.

39:58

OK. Cool.

40:01

And you're talking about Duplantis, that was at

40:03

a... That was a proper one, yeah.

40:05

Okay. Well, they're both proper, but that one

40:07

looked like a proper one. Yeah.

40:09

Because Duplantis, obviously, he broke the very old record of

40:11

Sergei Booker a couple of years ago, and that he's

40:13

kind of continued on since then. And

40:15

I mean, he's doing that. And Sergei Booker was, you

40:17

know, people felt that his record, I think, was 6.12.

40:21

That was... That people thought nobody would ever

40:23

break that, and now he's gone way beyond. So he... Duplantis

40:26

is doing the Booker thing, breaking it by

40:28

one centimeter every time. I reckon Duplantis is

40:31

probably capable of 15 centimeters

40:33

high. I just keep breaking until 20th century. Yeah,

40:36

it's the bonus. So...

40:39

He's spectacular to watch, though, my word.

40:42

It really is quite amazing watching him in the

40:44

pole water. I mean, I... You know, technically, I

40:46

don't understand the pole water like a pole water

40:48

does, but watching it live and seeing

40:50

somebody like that doing it at the top level

40:53

is extraordinary. I mean, they literally push up off

40:55

the pole and over the top, and it's just

40:57

the technique involved is just amazing to me. I

40:59

mean, it really is flying through the air. And

41:01

I find it extraordinary, you know. So, yeah,

41:04

it is. I mean, interesting, I was watching

41:06

the very awkward Laureus Awards.

41:08

I don't know whether you guys have watched

41:10

the Laureus Awards live on television. I

41:13

mean, they do a great job. It's supported

41:15

by Johan Rupert, the South African gazillionaire, and

41:18

it's held this year in Madrid. And

41:20

they have all the top sportsmen from around the

41:22

world. By the way, Novik Djokovic was Sportsman of

41:24

the Year, and that was for the fifth time.

41:27

The awards themselves, I mean, in

41:29

essence, they, you know, the the Doris

41:32

do a great job in terms of developing

41:34

sports around the world. But the awards themselves

41:36

are so cringy and so badly done that

41:38

I almost want to watch it

41:40

for very long. But it's but but he

41:42

was one of the plaintiffs was up there

41:44

as one of the nominees for Sportsman of

41:46

the Year and didn't win it. But certainly

41:49

shows you how his importance in

41:51

the world of sport is on

41:53

the aesthetics. Yeah, he's he's one of

41:55

a handful of big names. No,

41:59

actually, Michael. Johnson, who we'll get

42:01

onto, has recently posted something on Twitter

42:03

saying, there's a perception among

42:05

the media that track and field lacks personalities

42:07

like Bolt, Carl Lewis and him. And

42:10

he says my personality was an alias I

42:12

think is no Lyle, Shaqari, Shelly, Ann, Carsten,

42:14

Jacob, Ingebeth and I'd add

42:16

Mondo Duplantis to that. And the problem in athletics

42:19

isn't a lack of personalities. The problem is that

42:21

the sport is no longer a platform for great

42:23

personalities. So I don't, so

42:26

obviously, at some point, the future Johnson is going to

42:28

try and change that platform, right? Because you've got this

42:30

idea for a new way

42:32

to deliver athletics to us that will make

42:34

Mondo Duplantis more well known than Mobeck Chokovich.

42:37

So he wins that award next time he's nominated. Yeah.

42:40

But I don't know what it is. Like I, when

42:42

I watched athletics meetings in Europe, and Budapest

42:44

was really well attended, no? Yeah, I'm just

42:47

in packed every day. No, for the

42:49

next two Olympics, not the Olympics worlds, they're going

42:51

to go to, okay, maybe I'm doing Japan the

42:53

disservice, but they take it to places where

42:55

it's not going to be well attended. And then you have

42:57

this perception that the sport is really struggling. Diamond

43:00

League kicks off in Sherman in

43:02

a stadium that was 25% fall. You

43:05

think what's wrong with athletics? When

43:07

they go to Zurich and Brussels, okay, Brussels

43:09

is not diamond league anymore. And it is

43:11

it is it's Berlin that's not Paris, those

43:13

places they'll fill it you say this is

43:15

a healthy sport. So what's

43:18

the challenge for them? Right? Is it new markets? Or

43:20

is it losing its current markets? And

43:22

also with the Martha Johnson's comments are based on

43:24

the fact that he wants to launch a new

43:27

event. So is he being legitimate the raising

43:30

the concern around the future of the

43:32

sport to further his endeavors in his

43:34

new event? Or does he genuinely believe

43:36

the sport has a marketing?

43:39

Sure, he wants to do his event

43:41

because he believes this problem. So he thinks he can

43:43

deliver something a little bit better. What does

43:45

that look like? I don't know. I mean, that's a very

43:47

long conversation. But certainly,

43:50

people who watch on television, I

43:53

think wouldn't appreciate how dynamic and

43:55

athletic athletes are. Yeah, because the

43:57

coverage doesn't show you that. So for

44:00

For instance, the cameras on

44:02

athletes would make a big difference. No

44:04

one wants to wear a GoPro on their head when they're running

44:06

an 800 though. No, exactly. But it

44:09

would be a cool way to add insight to the package,

44:11

I think. Drone footage, for instance,

44:13

has added a little bit more to

44:15

cycling. Cycling's not struggling.

44:18

No. And conceptually, it's quite similar to track

44:20

and field. Could be

44:22

boring, perceptually, but actually coverage makes a

44:24

big difference. And television coverage is everything.

44:27

There's no doubt. I mean, if good television coverage

44:29

can change the way the sport is perceived by

44:31

the masses. And I think,

44:33

I mean, they have tried different things. They've had

44:35

light lit tracks and they've got markers

44:38

on the side of the track which show

44:40

people where they record markers and how far

44:42

they are behind. Those sort of things are

44:44

all interesting. But I always think the biggest

44:46

problem is that there is always a

44:49

focus around records and times

44:51

as opposed to what Barry

44:53

Con, the event organizer, is proposing. It

44:55

should be around the jewels. So

44:58

once you take our pace

45:00

centers, for instance, at diamond

45:03

league events, you can then focus on the race

45:05

and not necessarily the time. And I've always maintained

45:07

focus on the race because that's what

45:09

people want to watch. I don't know the difference between a

45:11

145, 800 meters and a 143 visually. But

45:16

I can appreciate a good race. And I think

45:18

that's the key. I think if there was enough focus on

45:20

there. But I think big events want to have, oh, we

45:22

had a world record here. We had five world records there.

45:25

I'm not sure that's good for TV. Gareth, what are your

45:27

thoughts? I think it's

45:29

the coverage itself is not enough coverage

45:31

on TV, perhaps on

45:34

terrestrial TV in the UK. You've got to go and look

45:36

for it. The Diamond League is on, but you've got to

45:38

go and search for it somewhere. I

45:41

did notice, I put it in the thread about

45:43

Michael Johnson, the Diamond

45:45

League coverage in the US is moving

45:47

to a very niche

45:50

subscription service called Flowtrack

45:53

because NBC, I think, used to own it, the

45:55

coverage. And then they've let

45:57

that go. And they said that's already telling. telling

46:01

things that NBC have let it

46:03

go because they simply don't value it anymore. And

46:06

so people are going to have to pay to

46:08

watch this small subscription service, which takes it out

46:10

of the public eye. It's only going to be

46:12

the enthusiasts that stay and the general public just

46:14

aren't going to see any diamond league meetings in

46:16

the US. Well, that's certainly not

46:18

helping the sport in any way. And you're going

46:21

to end up with just the Olympics and the

46:23

World Championships being the only relevant competitions.

46:29

And to some extent, the American market

46:31

is critically important for a sports global

46:34

coverage really, isn't it? I mean, it's probably the defining

46:36

one. I would say so too. I

46:38

mean, it's a topic I think we're probably about to roll

46:40

into next and that's the prize money in the Olympic. And

46:43

why that is being brought in because if people

46:46

haven't here, it is likely to be prize money

46:48

just from World Athletic brought in. Are

46:50

they trying to keep people in the sport by

46:52

doing that? Do they realise that there's a problem?

46:57

Well, let's kick into that. I mean, that is

46:59

a nice segue into this topic. And I mean,

47:02

I've got some strong views on this and I think we probably

47:04

all do. So there is, they

47:06

have announced that they're going to be giving prize money

47:08

to the medalists at the Olympics. And

47:11

what's it, $50,000, I think, for gold

47:13

medals. But it's

47:15

obviously raised, it's fairly polarising

47:17

because there's a lot of people, not

47:19

only on our Discourse Channel, but obviously on

47:21

the Twitterverse and the Zitecaster via internet who

47:23

say that this is moving away from the

47:26

spirit of the Olympic Games. There are those that

47:28

say, why not pay the

47:30

top athletes? Because the Olympic Games is making

47:32

a lot of money out of television coverage

47:34

and where does that money go, etc, etc.

47:36

So it's quite wrapped up in a lot

47:38

of different conversations. I mean, Ross, what

47:41

are your thoughts on whether Olympic medalists

47:43

should get prize money? Yeah,

47:46

of course they should. They're professionals. So

47:49

it's weird to me that they hadn't already. When

47:51

I saw it, I thought, well, is there no prize

47:54

at all? I mean, World Athletics will give them their

47:56

own championships. So is it because

47:58

of the Olympics and is there some... Is

48:01

this some aura around the Olympics

48:03

that means that we don't need to pay them

48:05

because the prestige of winning an Olympic medal is

48:07

that high? I don't think that's the case anymore.

48:09

Maybe it was once upon a time, but

48:11

the world has changed. So if everything else

48:14

is paid for like you're a professional and feed

48:16

people like professionals. And the reality

48:18

is it's not going to, you know, they're going

48:20

to pay them. It's not Super Bowl, NFL player,

48:22

baseball player levels of prize money and earnings, but

48:25

it's something and it's a symbolic thing that I think

48:27

says that it's a professional sport. The

48:30

problem, I think, and the reason that when

48:32

world athletics announced that they would pay then

48:34

there was blowback is because if

48:36

you're a modern pentathlon or weightlifting or

48:38

archery or whatever other sport in

48:41

the Olympic games, you can't match that payment

48:44

because all the talk we've had in

48:46

the last 10 minutes about how small world athletics is

48:48

and it's a niche sport, they can at least afford

48:50

to pay mid five figures, right? They were talking 50,000.

48:53

Yeah. There's no way weightlifting is paying 50,000. No.

48:56

It's a big old medalist in the Olympic games. So

48:59

now they're going to be shown up by it and

49:01

that's why there's blowback. But there's no doubt that it's

49:03

in principle. It's the way you've got to go. Yeah.

49:06

So I mean, just to clarify, so it's world

49:08

athletics that are paying these, this bonus and

49:11

Sebastian has defended this against this idea

49:13

of that it's against the spirit of

49:15

the Olympic games, whereas the IOC,

49:17

which runs the Olympic games has been a

49:20

bit blindsided by this and saying that they,

49:22

you know, they've always believed that just competing

49:24

in the games is reward enough. So that's

49:26

why it's become an interesting one. And I

49:28

agree with you 100%. I mean, why not?

49:32

If the, if you're a good

49:34

indication of this is we were talking about the

49:36

marathons. If you're a very

49:38

good marathon runner, surely

49:40

you're going to go with the money is

49:42

and the big money is at the big

49:44

major events around the world. It's not necessarily

49:47

the Olympic games. So I'm always surprised. Obviously

49:49

there are benefits in terms of sponsorship

49:51

and all sorts of bonuses from sponsors

49:53

for a guy like Kipchoge when he

49:55

wins the Olympic marathon. But in effect,

49:58

the money that they get is small. compared to

50:00

what they would get at a major marathon. So

50:02

I think it's a great move that Olympics is

50:04

doing this because they really are raising the importance

50:07

of the Olympic Games in the world of

50:09

athletics. And I guess there's going to

50:11

be pressure on all the other sports to do the same. Gareth,

50:15

what are your thoughts? I mean, it

50:17

is a controversial one. Where do you stand on

50:19

this? Well, I'm not even

50:21

going to argue with you because I agree

50:23

with you both in so this discourse. I

50:25

think that everybody deserves to get paid for

50:28

what they're doing. The Olympics hasn't been amateur

50:30

since 1992 was the dream team. As

50:34

a few of the athletes have brought up,

50:36

there are plenty of professionals in the Olympics.

50:38

There are golfers and baseball players. I

50:41

think soccer players are probably for the amateur.

50:43

I'm not sure. But there are

50:45

plenty of pro athletes who are now

50:47

competing in the Olympics. So why shouldn't the

50:49

amateurs get their cut too? It's

50:53

probably if the IOC don't want to end up

50:55

shelling out to them because they like their money.

50:58

I know that they hand out a

51:01

certain percentage of their revenue, which is

51:03

in the billions, to each

51:05

of the federations of

51:08

all the sports that make up the Olympics. So

51:11

in effect, they're paying world athletics

51:13

to pay their athletes in

51:15

contrary to what they want

51:17

to happen, which is kind of weird. But

51:20

I was reading that the commitment of the Olympic movement

51:23

is to maintain no more than 10% of

51:25

all revenue to go into administration. And

51:27

so if it is only 10%, then they've still

51:29

got, I don't know, six and a half billion

51:32

or so. So I'm sure they can afford to

51:34

pay the athletes. But if

51:36

it comes down to individual federations like Roth said,

51:38

that they won't have the money to do it

51:41

because they're going to... It's

51:43

only gold medals getting 50,000 this time. And

51:47

then they're going to say they're going to branch out and

51:49

all medal winners in athletics will get it in

51:51

the next Olympics. Although I've

51:54

also heard that it's going to be everybody

51:56

up who participates in athletics in the next

51:58

one. So

52:00

in discourse it actually turned into

52:02

how the IOC is funded. There's

52:04

a long thread from

52:08

Renheim Bird, Kevin again, looking

52:11

at how the IOC distributed its

52:13

money. So I think

52:16

the Olympic values are really important. As we

52:18

went back to earlier on, it's about the

52:21

athletes really want to compete and that's why

52:23

they keep their its country versus country. But

52:26

at the same time you've got

52:28

sports like swimming, cycling,

52:33

swimming actually have said, oh the

52:35

athletes, the athletes are saying yes

52:37

we want to be paid, why

52:39

should we be treated any different

52:42

to athletics? And then

52:44

you speak to the federations or the

52:46

federations have spoken such as the British

52:48

Olympic Association and

52:50

the Anson who's questioning ending the

52:53

128 year tradition it says. So

52:55

BOA, I don't want to be spending out

52:58

of their pocket. The same

53:00

with cycling. I think the head

53:02

of the UCI whose name escapes

53:04

me now. That's

53:08

right. He's come out against it. No, I don't

53:10

know. The UCI probably has the money to pay

53:12

its cyclists. I don't know. So why

53:14

he's come against it, I don't know. But

53:17

yeah, the opinion on discourses

53:19

definitely pay the athletes what

53:21

they deserve. Yeah, there's a

53:23

good quote in the story on The Guardian which we'll

53:25

put in the show notes from Co. where he says,

53:28

I came from an era where to compete for

53:30

the UK. It was a second class rail ticket

53:32

or a five p per mile allowance. And you

53:34

went from that one that was the best margin

53:36

and a 75p meal voucher. He said, my view

53:39

is that the world has really has changed. It's

53:41

really important that we're possible. We create a sport

53:43

that is financially viable for our competitors. And I

53:45

think we all agree on that. But to let

53:47

us know if you don't review that, because that

53:50

is an interesting debate. Why

53:52

did the best marathoners go even

53:54

to the Olympic

53:56

Games? Yeah, I remember they didn't used to do that to the

53:58

world championships. looking now between

54:01

1991, remember it's every two years, so 1, 3, 95, 97, 99, so it's five

54:06

world championships. How many East Africans were in

54:08

the top 10 across five world championships? So

54:10

there's 50 top 10 places, I guess. How

54:14

many East Africans? Yeah. Because

54:16

all those five events? Yeah, there are lost

54:18

five world championships, so 50 places in the

54:21

top 10 across five world championships. So I

54:23

would say they've got 10 of them. Three.

54:27

Three? East Africans, the Kenyans and Ethiopians

54:29

didn't used to go to world championships. Right. So

54:31

they didn't do it. When you look from 2007, 9, 11, they were winning

54:33

them all. They'd

54:36

occupy 80% of the podiums. And

54:38

so something changed, and I remember that actually. You

54:40

used to watch the world champ marathon, and you

54:43

used to see Spanish, Japanese, Italian, South African running

54:45

for the US, Mark Pleikis in 1993 won that

54:47

world title. And

54:50

that was financial incentives to get those

54:52

athletes to those world marathons. So

54:55

they didn't used to choose. And the Olympics,

54:57

you see, is always traded on its prestige.

54:59

You can be an Olympic champion, therefore no

55:02

prize money. But that's not so quaint. I've

55:05

heard rumors that Asifa won't

55:07

be going to the Paris

55:10

Olympics. We'd rather focus on Berlin, possibly

55:13

because the course doesn't suit it. But it's

55:15

the same sort of thing. Yeah. Because

55:18

the appearance fee and the world record fee that

55:20

you get, it's enormous, right? So there is a

55:23

premium attached to winning. You'd

55:25

have to value the Olympic title by

55:27

a factor of 10 more than you

55:29

value money. Yes,

55:31

you can monetize it obviously. But

55:34

yeah, but the direct is 200, that's 250, like 100 appearance fee, 250

55:36

for the world record

55:41

and your sponsor matches it. So you match 600 in

55:44

one marathon. So

55:46

50 at the Olympics. And

55:49

then you said, but hang on, as the Olympic champion,

55:51

think about the next five marathons. The guy says, I'm

55:53

not thinking about five marathons from now. I'm thinking about

55:55

one. So I'll go to

55:57

Berlin. So the fact that they even

55:59

say. the top athletes to the Olympics is the

56:19

richest sports and the Olympic program might well

56:21

do a lot to

56:23

keep making sure that the best athletes, I guess at the

56:25

end of the day you want the best athletes that

56:27

you can possibly get at the Olympic Games to make sure

56:29

that they are credible. There is in the smaller sports, I'm

56:32

thinking things like rowing and sailing and those sort

56:34

of events, there's not the same money but the

56:37

prestige of winning an Olympic medal for those sportsmen

56:39

who are supposedly more amateur

56:41

although a lot of them are professional and

56:44

just the prestige of winning that gets them funding

56:46

from federations and etc etc so that's an interesting

56:49

one. Just moving on to the

56:51

sport of cycling and for those of you who

56:54

have been following some of the discussions and this

56:56

has happened a while ago but there has been

56:58

some discussion around cycling safety and

57:00

the big story a couple of weeks ago

57:02

was the crash at the Basque

57:04

Country race where it took out the Jóns

57:07

Vínez guards, Remko Venepul and Primus

57:09

Roglic and the big four out

57:12

of the Tour de France all crashing. I mean

57:14

Roglic was the best off of all of them.

57:16

Vínez guard looks like he might not even make

57:18

the Tour de France at this rate, the Venepul

57:20

collarbone. I mean it was a

57:22

big crash but it's generated

57:24

the discussion about safety and I'm not really

57:26

sure why because it was an

57:28

accident but I don't think it was necessary anybody's fault

57:30

other than the fact that the riders were just going

57:32

around the corner too fast. It happens,

57:35

it generates the discussion because it's not

57:37

an isolation. Remember two weeks before that

57:39

or one week before that we lost

57:41

Fanart and Stuyven in that crash in

57:44

which one was it? It would have been

57:46

Dwasse de Flandre. So that,

57:49

like its face, it ruined the classics a little

57:51

bit right? Monument season especially the cobbles. This

57:54

crash in my opinion compromises the Tour de France

57:57

this year. Pagacci could win the Tour de France

57:59

on a year. unicycle now. If you

58:02

find the rest with one leg and you'll

58:06

anyone on the picture, like, is the jury

58:08

valuable to watch? Yeah, maybe I'm going to

58:10

see what's the jury to see who wins

58:12

some stages, but so

58:15

anyway, so crashes are very, the

58:17

impact of a crash is significant. And

58:20

we know that happened a lot. But when

58:22

they happen and take out three of the big

58:24

race favorites, and previously to that vote from art,

58:26

he was like the big monument favorites, then

58:29

they get disproportionate coverage. So that's why it's

58:31

a conversation. I don't know

58:33

whether the rates of crashing and

58:36

the injuries from crashing are higher or not,

58:38

because no one's got any historical data that

58:40

can inform this conversation. So every

58:43

time it comes up, like it has on discourse, my

58:45

point is the same is that until

58:47

cycling gets systematic about understanding how

58:49

often crashes happen, why they happen

58:52

and how they happened, they

58:54

can't have informed discussions about this. It's like,

58:56

what's happening now with cycling is like when

58:58

there's a shark attack here in Fisher, can

59:00

they say close the beaches? Yeah,

59:03

okay. But but one

59:05

shark attack cool. There's two arts and

59:08

if it's an epidemic of shark attacks,

59:10

sharks are changing, sharks evolving to hunt

59:12

humans. You know what I mean?

59:14

Like, there's a disproportionate thing to

59:16

say, it's an availability bias that's

59:18

in play here, I think. But

59:21

the conversation about the accidents probably needs to be

59:23

had, but it can't be had because of these

59:25

things that needs to be had over 10 years.

59:27

You see, I don't understand it because one of

59:29

the stories that's come out of this is the

59:32

UCI's new safe pro cycling initiative, which is called

59:34

SAFER. And that's, they basically

59:36

got rid of their CEO Joc van

59:38

Hultzen, basically because they

59:40

said that he there was still it

59:43

was more accidents, 38, apparently riders were

59:45

now injured in 2023. And

59:47

that wasn't acceptable. But accidents

59:49

in cycling are like part of the sport,

59:52

it seems impossible that you can put measures in

59:54

place to reduce the number of accidents unless there

59:57

is something critically wrong with either the

59:59

fact that spectators are too close to the course or

1:00:01

there is a cobble in the wrong place. I

1:00:03

mean it seems impossible that

1:00:05

somebody could be responsible for making professional

1:00:07

cycling safe. The thing is, now you're

1:00:10

listing specific questions about

1:00:12

what caused the accident. So you're in fact

1:00:15

asking for a systematic process

1:00:17

in order to answer those questions. Yes.

1:00:20

And that doesn't exist. So what you're saying is,

1:00:22

you're up, if you before

1:00:24

you let go, you should have done research into

1:00:27

what the cause of accident is. As I understand

1:00:29

it, and again I'm biased a little bit from

1:00:31

our own knowledge, but in

1:00:33

rugby for instance and in football the

1:00:35

same things exist, these fairly comprehensive injury

1:00:37

surveillance systems that identify exactly how many

1:00:39

injuries happen, how severe. You know like

1:00:42

in football and in rugby, if you

1:00:44

get a hamstring strain this weekend, someone

1:00:47

is documenting it within your team that it took you

1:00:49

31 days to return to

1:00:51

normal training and then that goes into

1:00:53

a database and we track hamstring injuries

1:00:55

sustained while sprinting and exactly what

1:00:57

time of the mass it is and then over time

1:00:59

you gain this knowledge about what the risk factors are.

1:01:01

We're doing that all the time for concussions. It

1:01:04

feels to me that cycling might have some information

1:01:06

on this because I read that stat like you

1:01:08

said 38 athletes injured so far. Well this is...

1:01:10

What was it in 1995? Well

1:01:13

here's an interesting set. This is a story on

1:01:15

Cycling Weekly where you do a great job and

1:01:17

they said in fact pro cycling, this is for

1:01:19

2024 according to pro cycling stats reported a total

1:01:21

of 135 injuries so far this year. In 2023,

1:01:23

they saw the most injury since 2014

1:01:29

at 296 so there's

1:01:32

a perception, well not a perception, there's a reality

1:01:34

that there are more accidents. So what

1:01:36

you're saying is... Why? Why?

1:01:40

Because now you've got to get those teams to say

1:01:42

what were the circumstances around that accident? Do

1:01:44

those... Yeah. Has the proportion of

1:01:46

accidents in the last three kilometres of a race, especially

1:01:49

in the flat stage, stayed the same

1:01:51

but in the first 50 is gone up because

1:01:53

okay then it's aggressive racing in the first 50

1:01:55

k's. Are there accidents happening

1:01:57

on descents? In which case I'd be... thinking

1:02:00

the speeds are too high and then you'd say,

1:02:02

well, why might that be? Well, could it be

1:02:04

the disc brakes are allowing athletes to brake later

1:02:06

and more forcefully in corners, and therefore

1:02:08

carry six kilometers an hour faster than they

1:02:10

would with rim brakes. If

1:02:12

I were to discover that, you know, it suggests one

1:02:15

thing that they need to discuss is whether they should

1:02:17

ban disc brakes. You

1:02:19

know, like, so that's, that's the kind of

1:02:21

thing are the accidents because of road furniture.

1:02:23

So a couple in the

1:02:25

in the monuments where cyclists hit signs

1:02:28

in the middle of islands. Okay,

1:02:31

well, why might that be? Do we need to tie

1:02:33

balloons to them and make them more prominent so that

1:02:35

the cyclists can see them from further away? Is it

1:02:38

an education thing? I listened to

1:02:40

some people talking about, in fact, Matthew from a

1:02:42

pool said this, he says the biggest problem is

1:02:44

rider behavior, which is true, but you

1:02:46

can modify rider behavior, just because it's rider behavior doesn't

1:02:48

mean we have to throw our hands up and say

1:02:50

we can't do anything about this. Is

1:02:53

it the spectators causing more accidents? In which case,

1:02:55

there's a new solution for that. So

1:02:57

you understand that you can ask

1:02:59

and you can start by saying, okay, we've seen

1:03:02

an increase in accidents, then we have to start

1:03:04

understanding why and only then can you start thinking

1:03:06

about solutions. The moment it feels to me people

1:03:08

are chucking ideas around without necessarily knowing that there

1:03:10

might be a basis for them. Yeah,

1:03:14

I mean, there was some study that came

1:03:16

out of the Ghent University where they suggested

1:03:18

that looking at some of the results of

1:03:21

these crashes, 50% of crashes were due to

1:03:23

rider behavior, was 50% due to

1:03:25

other factors such as obstacles that are not

1:03:27

signal the speed of the peloton. So there

1:03:30

is some basic even that's like if you if

1:03:32

you if you're going along at 65k an hour

1:03:35

and then you hit something in the road, is that rider

1:03:37

behavior? Or was it the thing in the road? Because you've been

1:03:39

going 55, you wouldn't hit it. So,

1:03:44

so and maybe they've got all this, but they

1:03:46

certainly don't communicate and publish it, you know, and

1:03:48

whereas in football and certainly in rugby, the stock

1:03:50

is published. So it's available and maybe I'm doing

1:03:53

a disservice to them on put that out there

1:03:55

that maybe they have all this. But

1:03:57

I don't I don't think they have it in

1:03:59

anything like the detail and needs to

1:04:01

have informed conversations about exactly

1:04:03

how to do it. And instead it seems that they're

1:04:06

relying on acquired wisdom which

1:04:08

is so vulnerable to bias. Yeah.

1:04:11

And as you say, maybe looking

1:04:13

at the data suggests a solution

1:04:15

rather than just saying, well, that's

1:04:17

racing. I mean, I'm

1:04:19

sure you all have our own theories about why

1:04:22

cycling potentially has eye injury rates. I

1:04:24

mean, I think it's much more aggressive now than it has been. But

1:04:26

anyway, I mean, that's something to strike. It definitely is. Yeah.

1:04:29

And I think that corner where they all went off in the

1:04:31

Basque Country were insanely high. Yeah. But

1:04:34

it didn't look like a dangerous corner unless the surface

1:04:36

was really uneven. You know, sometimes you get tar that

1:04:38

melts and then it makes those little ripples. Maybe

1:04:41

that's the problem. And in that case, there

1:04:43

needs to be some principle that like guided

1:04:45

areas like that need to be more clearly

1:04:47

signposted and painted over the day

1:04:49

before the race comes through so that they're

1:04:52

clear to the riders. In that specific instance,

1:04:54

if some of those riders hadn't gone into that

1:04:56

concrete ditch, they wouldn't have been nearly as badly

1:04:58

injured thinking they were jay-bine. So

1:05:01

then you say, okay, accidents may happen, but can

1:05:03

we protect the rider from the consequences of the

1:05:05

accident? That's also a safer way to run

1:05:07

cycling. And so maybe the mistake that was made

1:05:09

there was to not pad that ditch up. No.

1:05:13

I don't know. Like it just

1:05:15

feels what caused Gino Mater's death.

1:05:17

Still don't know. High speed. Yeah.

1:05:20

Okay, cool. But you can't ask him to

1:05:22

slow down. You have to make them slow down. Or

1:05:25

you have to deal with the consequences of high

1:05:27

speeds. But like they happened before the Forest

1:05:30

of Orr and Badges. This is a good example.

1:05:32

This is a good example. So everyone says, well,

1:05:34

that's away from the spectacle. All that's going to

1:05:36

do is move the point of the accident somewhere

1:05:39

else with the biggest criticism. And now it's a

1:05:41

race to get into that chicane. And say,

1:05:43

okay, but that's probably they were happy with

1:05:45

that outcome because it's far better to crash

1:05:48

on the tarmac than to crash on those

1:05:50

cobbles. I can guarantee you that. Yes. And

1:05:53

the riders asked for that, for instance. So

1:05:56

that was actually an example of like, I can see the logic behind

1:05:58

it. They could have maybe done it a little bit better. better,

1:06:00

but maybe not with the time available to them. So

1:06:03

I don't know, the whole conversation feels

1:06:05

a little bit knee-jerker-ish and guesswork-like. Yeah.

1:06:08

Yeah. Whereas I think there's a, as you

1:06:10

say, what you're working on, Lord Ray Griffin, for instance,

1:06:12

gives an indication of the kind of data that you

1:06:14

need to get before you start making decisions. Yeah. And

1:06:16

Gareth can comment because he's seen it in the discourse,

1:06:18

but the guy that they fired, like I assume, was

1:06:22

let go from that role with safer cycling. I

1:06:24

assume he was put there to try and address some of these

1:06:26

issues. But then I gathered that

1:06:29

he was actually an employee of Visma, used

1:06:32

to be. Yeah. I

1:06:34

thought, so Chief Operations Officer Gareth, did I get that

1:06:36

wrong? I think he was X,

1:06:39

wasn't he? That's the top of my head.

1:06:41

I think Van Holten

1:06:43

was sharing, oh sorry, you were right, was

1:06:46

sharing his time between safer and his former

1:06:48

role as Chief Operating Officer at Visma-Lysabike, who

1:06:50

was out there. Because it sounds like he

1:06:52

wasn't doing his job in a way, he

1:06:54

wasn't getting the data that they need, because that

1:06:56

was the whole point of safer, was to gather

1:06:58

this data. And somebody said on discourse, why hasn't

1:07:00

the data been published? And it's probably because they

1:07:02

weren't correcting it properly, and that's why he's not

1:07:05

in his job anymore. But the reason they weren't

1:07:07

collecting it properly is because he's with a team.

1:07:09

Yeah, probably, yeah. That's the equivalence that

1:07:12

World Rugby letting harlequins be responsible for

1:07:14

English injury club data and lengths to

1:07:16

collect all the data from the UFC.

1:07:18

Like nobody in there, the

1:07:21

politics of the situation mean that nobody would give

1:07:24

data on injuries which have implications for

1:07:26

performance to someone who's linked to someone

1:07:28

you think is a rival. It's mad

1:07:30

that you don't set it up independently. So it

1:07:32

seems really silly to me. The

1:07:35

UCI said about it, it

1:07:37

said it became clear that the work carried out

1:07:39

to date has not lived up to the objective

1:07:41

set, particularly in a context in which too many

1:07:43

accidents have occurred. So yeah, it basically wasn't collecting

1:07:46

the data as it should have been.

1:07:48

By the way, you were absolutely right

1:07:50

about that corner in the Basque Country,

1:07:52

but apparently it was well known by

1:07:55

the local riders who ride it that

1:07:57

it's a dangerous corner. saw

1:08:00

a podcast with Remco Evanipal

1:08:03

describing the crash and yeah there were bumps

1:08:05

in the road. I think you text that

1:08:07

at the time that you thought there were

1:08:09

bumps in the road and he lost contact,

1:08:11

one of his wheels lost contact while he

1:08:13

was braking doing I think 87 kilometers an

1:08:15

hour. His driver

1:08:17

file showed him leaving the road at 78 or

1:08:19

something. 78,

1:08:22

87 or 78 yeah when his

1:08:24

wheel we contact again he just threw him off

1:08:26

to the left and off he went into the

1:08:28

woods. But if

1:08:31

they knew about the corner or the riders knew

1:08:33

about the corner then surely somebody, the

1:08:35

race director should have known about the corner

1:08:38

and it'd be a notorious dangerous

1:08:40

corner because it's completely changed the face of

1:08:42

cycling for this year now hasn't it? But

1:08:45

how do you do that over

1:08:48

280 kilometer race is another question

1:08:50

entirely. Well someone's job. Somebody's

1:08:53

job I guess is to know the route

1:08:55

intimately. I

1:08:58

mean they have race officials asking the course

1:09:00

with flags when there's road furniture in the

1:09:02

way so why not have one on a

1:09:04

descent which shows a dangerous descent. I

1:09:08

tuned into that broadcast just before it

1:09:10

happened like literally three minutes before and

1:09:13

there was a group of four up the road and

1:09:15

they were literally showing a replay of one of those

1:09:17

four coming back onto the road having gone

1:09:19

off at exactly that same corner into the

1:09:21

grass like Evan Apple did. And

1:09:23

so a group of four in

1:09:25

front under no particular pressure of being in

1:09:28

a peloton overshot the same corner. So

1:09:30

even there you think okay

1:09:32

maybe there's a problem with this corner. Yeah

1:09:35

if we hadn't have lost four favorites for the

1:09:37

Ford Tour de France would we be having this

1:09:39

conversation now? Is the other question? No

1:09:41

we wouldn't. No that's a sad thing about it. Just

1:09:46

on another topic I mean it's

1:09:48

a little bit off the topic around

1:09:50

safe cycling but there was some dramatic

1:09:53

footage of the weather at Le Flesche

1:09:55

Blonde where 44 riders including all the

1:09:57

favorites pulled out of the race and I watched some

1:09:59

of the highlights. on the Lenten

1:10:01

Rouge YouTube where they could

1:10:06

see the hail of the back of the riders

1:10:10

and I mean Ross you'll understand some of

1:10:12

the the science behind this because those riders

1:10:14

going into now one two degrees Celsius with

1:10:17

wind chill factor

1:10:19

it was dramatic because we saw people

1:10:21

like Mateus Shulmuzo actually

1:10:24

carried to a car and like a child. He was

1:10:28

so cold and lots of riders pulled out of

1:10:31

there. I think there's a lot of times when it's

1:10:33

very cold a lot of riders pulled out of there.

1:10:35

It's just because the cold which is quite rare surprisingly

1:10:38

so. Yeah so there were so

1:10:40

remember there's that saying that thing is bad weather

1:10:42

only bad clothing. Yeah. But

1:10:44

in cycling it's really difficult. I've not

1:10:47

found a solution for cold wet days

1:10:50

that allows me to be warm enough descending

1:10:52

and not overheating up. So

1:10:54

when you have a route that requires both those things

1:10:56

but a climbing and a bit of descending and

1:10:59

you then have cold wet days I

1:11:01

think it is really difficult. And

1:11:03

if those teams can't get it right then it shows

1:11:06

you they're actually pretty close to the limits of trying

1:11:08

to balance those two imperatives. Yeah. And

1:11:10

the other thing I think that's happening there is you

1:11:12

would have to change clothing a lot. You know

1:11:14

you could get the jacket off once it's wet

1:11:17

and then put something dry on so that

1:11:19

you don't then because this is that convective cooling

1:11:21

effect in that heat removal as it were. But

1:11:24

the pressure on the race it doesn't allow

1:11:26

that to happen and maybe there's also concerns

1:11:28

around aerodynamic losses and disadvantages

1:11:31

that they're trying to juggle. So in

1:11:33

the end they they put their chips down that

1:11:36

we're going to stay warm with the barest minimum

1:11:39

of compromised performance and they all

1:11:41

lost that bet on that particular day. Yeah. The

1:11:43

thing with scum was of those I couldn't

1:11:46

understand why it took him I mean by

1:11:48

the time he was carried off the road he must

1:11:51

have been pedaling reverse squares

1:11:53

because he was shivering so aggressively

1:11:55

that there's no way he would have

1:11:57

had control of that bike or his legs well enough to

1:11:59

pedal. So he would have been dropped from

1:12:01

the group a long, long time before. There was

1:12:04

no prospect of him trying to come back. There's

1:12:07

a big monument at the weekend. What's

1:12:09

the point? Why are

1:12:11

you out there as long as you are? So it

1:12:14

seems like the decision to remove riders from the race

1:12:16

is delayed for far, far, far too long when things

1:12:18

do go wrong. Yeah. I

1:12:21

mean, cyclists

1:12:24

are well known for going through some pretty tough

1:12:26

conditions. I mean, certainly professional riders, I think, can

1:12:28

overcome an incredible amount of stuff. So when you

1:12:30

see that happening, you realize that it is pretty

1:12:33

extreme because you wouldn't see that normally. A

1:12:35

cyclist will ride pretty much through anything just

1:12:37

to get the win. And yeah, that was

1:12:39

a, there was some dramatic scenes from that.

1:12:43

Anyway, so let's move on to our final topic

1:12:45

of the day today. And this, Gareth, I want

1:12:47

to ask you to explain this a bit because

1:12:49

this is a story that's obviously being on our

1:12:51

Discourse channel where this is around the

1:12:53

Chinese swimmers. And maybe you can just give us

1:12:55

a bit of background as to what people have

1:12:57

been discussing it and to the story itself. Yeah,

1:13:00

well, it came up earlier this week, and I'm

1:13:02

sure people have seen it in the media already,

1:13:05

that 23 Chinese swimmers have tested

1:13:07

positive for a banned heart drug,

1:13:10

TMZ. They tested positive

1:13:12

actually back in 2021. And

1:13:16

we've only started to hear about it now, which is part of the issue.

1:13:20

Obviously they were contaminated in a hotel

1:13:22

restaurant that they were all in where

1:13:25

they all

1:13:27

somehow ingested this drug. But

1:13:29

the real story is that, like I say, nobody's heard

1:13:31

of it until now. And

1:13:34

it took a little bit of whistle blowing

1:13:36

and a German documentary team to really go

1:13:38

into it along with, I think, the New

1:13:40

York Times. And

1:13:43

one of the big problems is that several

1:13:45

of these Chinese swimmers went on to

1:13:47

win medals in Tokyo, including

1:13:49

three gold medals. So of

1:13:51

course, it's been uproar throughout the media about it.

1:13:55

And Yousada have got involved, Travis

1:13:57

Teigart, the head of Yousada. the

1:14:00

US anti-doping has

1:14:02

really been questioning Wada on its

1:14:05

policies because Wada basically said they

1:14:07

were informed about this by Chinada,

1:14:09

these acronyms are great aren't they,

1:14:11

Chinada which is the Chinese anti-doping,

1:14:13

they were informed about it, looked

1:14:17

at it and they were sort of advised by their

1:14:19

legal teams that there was no way they were going

1:14:21

to win any sort of

1:14:23

appeal against the

1:14:26

decision by Cass because basically

1:14:28

Chinada said okay we believe

1:14:30

that these 23 athletes were

1:14:34

inadvertently contaminated

1:14:36

and so there's no case to be

1:14:38

had and Wada said fair enough and

1:14:42

then it all went silent until this

1:14:44

whistleblower has appeared and all hell has

1:14:46

broken loose. So now we've got Wada

1:14:48

threatening to take Travis

1:14:51

Teigata court I think was the last thing

1:14:53

we heard about it in fact they've just

1:14:55

today I think it was Ross did a

1:14:57

press conference and I were long press conference

1:14:59

about it all. So it's all

1:15:01

a bit murky and to

1:15:03

say that people on that in

1:15:06

the first place because

1:15:08

really there's two sides to this story

1:15:11

you've got the actual doping case

1:15:13

itself were these

1:15:16

swimmers doping or

1:15:18

were they innocent

1:15:23

of this heart drug which found its

1:15:25

way into their food or

1:15:27

in the air or however it was done and

1:15:31

the second part is why is there no

1:15:33

transparency from Wada because I believe the Wada

1:15:35

rules are that once there's

1:15:37

a doping case then there's a provisional

1:15:39

suspension of the athlete while it's investigated

1:15:41

and then it's publicly the data is

1:15:43

or data the story is publicly released

1:15:45

by Wada which clearly didn't happen in

1:15:47

this case. So it's

1:15:49

all very convoluted and of course now

1:15:52

it's turned into a bit of a

1:15:54

pile on with I think you've got

1:15:57

German athletics getting

1:15:59

involved. I think Fiena are involved.

1:16:02

And basically, Warder's I think a bit on the back

1:16:04

foot at the minute, I think it's fair to say.

1:16:07

So that's a summary. It's very

1:16:09

convoluted at the moment. And this

1:16:11

is when its story first came up, I was sort

1:16:14

of up in arms and a little bit hyperbolic about

1:16:16

it, perhaps on discourse. And

1:16:18

I think it was Peter McNerney came

1:16:20

back and said, well, what else could you

1:16:22

expect Warder to do? And that's a really

1:16:24

reasonable thing to say because Warder's

1:16:27

hands were tied at this point. Ross

1:16:31

said, well, perhaps the problem is that I used

1:16:34

the word nebulous, but really, the

1:16:36

problem is that Warder sort

1:16:40

of behesstered each

1:16:43

country's own doping agencies.

1:16:46

So it's a bit nebulous. Nobody

1:16:49

seems to really be in total control

1:16:51

of the whole thing, who

1:16:54

appears to be heading off the roads and careering

1:16:56

downhill at the minute. So my

1:17:00

two minute take on Chinese doping

1:17:03

in a nutshell. Yeah, Ross, before I

1:17:05

bring you in, just to give you the background

1:17:08

then. So ARD, the German TV channel and the

1:17:10

New York Times led this investigation.

1:17:12

And they looked through a 61 page

1:17:15

investigative report that was done by the

1:17:17

Chinese anti-doping agency. And they discovered that

1:17:19

they'd found trace elements of TMZ in

1:17:22

the extractor fan on the spice containers

1:17:24

in the drains of the hotel kitchen

1:17:26

where the swimmers had been staying, which

1:17:29

is the justification for it. And

1:17:31

so as Gareth has just

1:17:33

said, you obviously have to take

1:17:35

the word of the drug authority in

1:17:37

that country and say, well, are

1:17:40

they compromised in that finding

1:17:43

or are they legitimately innocent

1:17:45

of doping? Yes.

1:17:47

Now, there's a lot to the story.

1:17:50

The water doesn't always take the

1:17:52

word of its national anti-doping organizations,

1:17:54

its member federations. And that's why

1:17:56

you often hear water will appeal.

1:18:00

decision made by the Spanish anti-doping agent, whatever it

1:18:02

is, the Italian, the South African that's happened here

1:18:05

as well, where Sades,

1:18:07

our institute, we don't have an ARDA, we have

1:18:10

an AIDS, South African Institute of

1:18:12

Drug-Free Sport, they'll clear an athlete and then

1:18:15

Wada will appeal that. They chose not to

1:18:17

because they didn't feel that they had enough

1:18:19

to win the case and so it was just

1:18:21

going to be a black hole for money and

1:18:23

time and energy. So

1:18:26

the fundamental problem is this, like you're

1:18:29

publishing two magazines, yeah Mike, I'm talking

1:18:31

about now. Yes. So you're

1:18:33

ultimately accountable for bringing those magazines out

1:18:35

on the schedule that's agreed with the

1:18:38

title owner. So you are accountable.

1:18:41

But imagine you had to produce the content for

1:18:43

those magazines from 25 different

1:18:45

people who all had to get things

1:18:47

to you on time and so forth and they never did.

1:18:49

And you had no way to force them to do it. That's

1:18:53

the suggestion, Wada's in. They

1:18:55

are accountable without having power. And

1:18:57

so the dilemma for them when a story like

1:19:00

this comes out is if they came out and

1:19:02

said, you know what we heard about this but

1:19:04

we couldn't get into China to investigate it because

1:19:06

of COVID, we can't challenge what

1:19:08

Chinada have concluded based on their report. Not

1:19:10

on the Chinese anti-doping authority. We can't challenge

1:19:13

them. We have to take their word for

1:19:15

it. That would be a confession of lacking

1:19:17

power. And so they don't

1:19:19

want to do that because that's not so cool. So

1:19:22

instead they say, we've looked at it and

1:19:24

then this is where it gets convoluted. We've

1:19:26

looked at TMZ and we find no benefits

1:19:28

for performance. We've looked at the

1:19:30

concentration of the drugs in the

1:19:32

athlete's urine that was detected and it's so

1:19:35

low that it supports contamination and wouldn't be

1:19:37

performance enhancing. That's totally off

1:19:39

script. And so they're in

1:19:41

effect supporting and justifying

1:19:44

the conclusion made by Chinada in order

1:19:46

to appear as though they've got some

1:19:50

some influence over it. The reality is

1:19:52

that because of COVID, they couldn't get

1:19:54

in there and they couldn't do the

1:19:56

investigations for themselves. And

1:19:58

so they're in a actually they're in a really. really difficult situation because

1:20:00

the way it's set up, as Gareth has alluded

1:20:03

to, is they are reliant on

1:20:05

people on the ground to do the work the

1:20:07

right way. And in the absence of the

1:20:09

ability to test whether that work was done the right

1:20:11

way, they kind of have to accept it. Or

1:20:14

they could say, for the sake of posturing,

1:20:16

we're challenging Chinada, but that's

1:20:18

politically and financially and time-wise maybe

1:20:21

quite unfavorable for them to do. So

1:20:25

that's why in any end they don't tell us anything.

1:20:27

So for example, TMZ is

1:20:29

a drug, trimetodazine, because it's named

1:20:31

HOT. It's not the first

1:20:34

time we've seen it because Kamala Velieva,

1:20:36

who's the young Russian ice skater who

1:20:38

was the big story of the Winter

1:20:40

Olympics in 2022, that was

1:20:42

the drug she was caught with, in

1:20:44

the one case. And then

1:20:47

a Chinese swimmer called Sun Yang, who's a

1:20:49

famous and controversial swimmer because

1:20:51

at the last Olympics, none

1:20:53

of the Australian swimmers and other

1:20:55

countries refused to

1:20:57

shake his hand and recognize him because

1:21:00

he'd failed the test for the same drug. So

1:21:02

whatever's going on in the east, and east I

1:21:05

mean Russia and China, this drug

1:21:07

is in circulation. And

1:21:09

so they're claiming contamination. Cool, maybe that's the

1:21:11

case because maybe the cook at the hotel

1:21:13

is an older guy who's been given this

1:21:15

drug for heart conditions. But

1:21:17

now you've got to explain why 23 athletes failed. There were

1:21:20

200 athletes in that hotel, were

1:21:22

they not exposed if it was in the extractor van?

1:21:24

It seems like a kind of place you'd find it

1:21:27

if it was pretty widely. And

1:21:29

it's tablets and not a powder. And it's

1:21:31

tablets. So how did it get? So like,

1:21:33

those are some of the questions that you'd

1:21:35

have to explore if you wanted to do

1:21:37

a thorough investigation. Yeah. And Chanada from all

1:21:40

accounts haven't done a thorough investigation. And Wada

1:21:42

haven't been able to do a thorough investigation.

1:21:45

So now it's a take our word for its situation.

1:21:47

Yeah. And Wada can't, yeah,

1:21:50

Wada can't flex to

1:21:52

say we're challenging this regardless because they

1:21:54

would lose that in court. Yeah.

1:21:57

And so they're backing out of a fight. They know they can't win.

1:21:59

So you've feel actually some sympathy for them

1:22:01

but to

1:22:19

cover it which you've already mentioned but then

1:22:21

there is further support from all the ethics

1:22:24

who said they believe the tests were handled

1:22:26

diligently and professionally so there's support and equivocally

1:22:28

from all the aquatics saying that

1:22:30

yeah which supports the fact that they

1:22:32

felt the test was done properly so

1:22:35

they're not questioning the Chinese derping authority

1:22:37

with a world of critics although what

1:22:39

are not necessarily saying that they trust

1:22:42

that they just that they couldn't do

1:22:44

did it didn't survive so is there

1:22:47

a world yeah so

1:22:49

world championships are a big event to do to

1:22:51

go to China anytime soon I

1:22:54

don't know anything any idea on that one no

1:22:57

idea you've been as

1:22:59

cynical as I am

1:23:01

no raspous there's

1:23:04

no doubt that there's a political

1:23:06

pressure you know you're

1:23:08

bidding or planning to host a big event

1:23:11

then is that organizing I mean that was

1:23:13

the case for Russia hmm I think that's

1:23:15

a big part of it you know and Russia and China

1:23:17

are the two of the big three rights other than the

1:23:19

US hmm to me that the

1:23:21

US gets involved the way that it does because it's

1:23:24

it's taken the role of global police

1:23:26

on this issue and it's quite

1:23:28

happy to flex against the East but

1:23:31

invites huge huge

1:23:34

risk I think because okay whilst I

1:23:36

don't know that they'd be state-sponsored derping

1:23:38

in the US you can't guarantee

1:23:40

your own houses in order no before

1:23:43

you start flinging accusations at others what

1:23:45

do your thoughts on that I mean when you look at the evidence

1:23:48

Ross I mean do you look at the new with skepticism the

1:23:50

area of course because you know

1:23:52

23 out of 200 low

1:23:54

concentrations now we have to swallow this

1:23:56

idea that low concentrations means contamination no

1:23:59

of course not It could mean you

1:24:01

took a high dose a week before you were tested or a

1:24:04

low dose the night before you were tested. But

1:24:06

you see, there are ways that water could

1:24:08

build that argument and so could Gennada by

1:24:10

the way. If you've tested that

1:24:12

athlete six times over two weeks and

1:24:15

you find constantly low doses and

1:24:18

some days it's there, some days it's

1:24:20

not, that supports maybe a low-low exposure

1:24:22

argument, right? If you've only got

1:24:25

one test in each of those 23 athletes, then

1:24:27

low concentrations are relevant. I don't even know why

1:24:29

it's being raised and put on the table. Whereas

1:24:32

if you've got some, and of the other,

1:24:34

what's it, 177 athletes, like did they not have

1:24:38

any? Did were they not tested? Did some

1:24:40

of them get tested and found

1:24:42

to be negative? It's the same exercise.

1:24:44

Remember when COVID hit and everyone was

1:24:46

doing those exercises to see, could we

1:24:48

trace the super spreader event? And you

1:24:50

say, these people tended to congregate together.

1:24:52

They all got sick. These people didn't.

1:24:55

That's the kind of epidemiological doping

1:24:57

exercise that would maybe support

1:25:00

that argument. Now, did

1:25:02

Gennada do it? Maybe not. Wada

1:25:05

couldn't. But at least what Wada

1:25:07

could do is say, well, this is what we

1:25:09

would have done. We couldn't. Well, this

1:25:11

is what Gennada did. Here it is. You

1:25:14

know, like some transparency and dare I

1:25:16

say humility about our own

1:25:18

limitations, because yes, Wada said they couldn't get in

1:25:20

there. And I'm sympathetic to that because of COVID.

1:25:23

But they haven't said anything like enough

1:25:26

to convince me that Gennada's 61 pages is

1:25:30

worth believing

1:25:34

at face value. I guess that's

1:25:36

interesting. Yeah, sorry, Gareth. No, I

1:25:38

was going to say, I forgot to

1:25:41

mention a story that was on the

1:25:43

Associated Press yesterday. It came up in

1:25:46

the last two years before Wada

1:25:49

signed off on clearing the 23 athletes that China

1:25:54

contributed nearly $2 million above its

1:25:56

yearly requirements to Wada programs. So

1:26:01

they gave $993,000 in 2018 and $992,000 in 2019. Two years it led to one of

1:26:03

its Olympians been

1:26:12

elected to one of the agency's vice presidents.

1:26:14

So yeah it does sound a little bit

1:26:16

sketchy there and it

1:26:19

does go on to mention the

1:26:21

fraying issues, tensions

1:26:24

between the United States and

1:26:28

water. And I was

1:26:30

going to bring it up Ross, do you remember

1:26:32

the calf sleeves story that came up? I'm going

1:26:34

to mention about this one because we talk about

1:26:36

everybody and you've got to be careful because you

1:26:39

can't just assume that one country is good, one country is

1:26:41

bad because the world

1:26:44

doesn't work that way. And

1:26:46

you thought it certainly isn't as there is

1:26:49

no white in all these things as

1:26:51

you would believe because then Owen Zarelli

1:26:53

posted a really interesting

1:26:55

post on Discord about

1:26:59

calf sleeve contamination

1:27:01

in athletics. So

1:27:04

there was an Aldrich

1:27:07

Bailey of Texas was

1:27:09

tested positive for trace levels of osterine

1:27:12

from contaminated neoprene hamstring sleeves at no

1:27:14

fault of his own. That's

1:27:16

the compression that

1:27:19

he wanted. So he did not face a

1:27:21

period of inelisibility, has

1:27:23

no fault violation but nevertheless it

1:27:25

must be publicly disclosed with disqualification

1:27:27

of component routes if elected. So

1:27:31

basically Travis Tigard

1:27:33

then says basically

1:27:36

through in depth investigations and painstaking scientific

1:27:38

studies we continue to see the way

1:27:41

many athletes may be innocently exposed to

1:27:43

prohibited substances. Now that's coming from the

1:27:45

head of Yezada because it's an American

1:27:47

athlete who basically I think he

1:27:50

borrowed his mate's hamstring sleeves and his

1:27:52

mate was using this drug so

1:27:55

he tested positive but

1:27:58

then got away with it. While

1:28:00

his mate actually went down for it. I

1:28:02

wish his feelings Travis target actually was Defending

1:28:05

this and then defended this Running

1:28:09

can be given Not defending

1:28:11

like on a city very critical of the Chinese

1:28:13

situation. I reckon on a scale of like Highly

1:28:16

believable to like what the hell are you talking

1:28:19

about? This costly thing is further over to the

1:28:21

what the hell side than the Chinese TMZ experience.

1:28:23

Yeah Yeah, but I see both could be true

1:28:25

or neither could be true You don't know and

1:28:28

in fact the broader context of this is that you

1:28:30

saw it for at least the last

1:28:32

five or six years Has been on quite an

1:28:34

aggressive push to change the

1:28:37

doping curve So that very small doses

1:28:39

of banned substances are not declared to

1:28:41

be doping Yeah, because

1:28:43

they are saying and I I

1:28:46

can see why they're saying that the risk of

1:28:48

contamination to athletes is so high And

1:28:51

the consequence of that contamination is so enormous

1:28:53

to the athletes and to the sports actually

1:28:55

because they continually drag Sport

1:28:57

through the mud that I think you saw

1:28:59

it are almost leaning in that direction at

1:29:01

the NFL and amazing league baseball have gone

1:29:03

With respect to doping which is to say

1:29:05

let's not look too hard for it It's

1:29:09

actually a net negative for us.

1:29:11

So Travis Tygos got form for

1:29:13

backing anything that supports Contamination

1:29:15

at very low concentrations. Let's let

1:29:18

it go. He's supporting that Yeah,

1:29:20

yeah, that he's yeah, another thing This

1:29:24

is China. Yeah, that's and that's the problem and

1:29:26

that's why I made the point in Gareth's reinforcing

1:29:28

The point is that you have to be real

1:29:30

careful when you say your explanation is nonsense But

1:29:32

here let me show you mine and they're actually

1:29:35

the same thing Because

1:29:38

if it's low levels of a drug and You're

1:29:40

gonna argue that it's at such low levels

1:29:42

that it a supports contamination and B is

1:29:45

highly unlikely to be performance enhancing Then

1:29:47

that must be equally true whether it's TMZ in

1:29:49

China or Austrian in a USA Yeah,

1:29:52

you're gone. You can't now say

1:29:54

oh, you know you you Chinese We're

1:29:56

super suspicious of you lights and therefore

1:29:58

we don't believe contamination for you but

1:30:00

we're gonna let our guys off.

1:30:03

That's the problem that they've got. I don't

1:30:06

know, that whole low concentration

1:30:08

thing is a separate debate maybe. But

1:30:10

yeah. So his target

1:30:12

is an interesting character because he was the

1:30:14

one that chased down Lance Armstrong to some

1:30:16

extent wasn't he? So he's got a history

1:30:19

of being you know quite one of those

1:30:21

sort of celebrity anti-dopers. Anyway

1:30:23

that's pretty much wraps it up for this

1:30:26

episode of our Discourse Catch-Up. Big thank you

1:30:28

to Gareth for putting together a lot of

1:30:30

our notes on this episode and of course

1:30:32

to Professor Ross Tucker who's heading off to

1:30:34

Europe this evening. What are you doing in

1:30:37

Europe? Other than riding, I

1:30:40

think you're riding your bike a bit, aren't you?

1:30:42

I'm gonna squeeze in a couple of days in

1:30:44

Belgium and re-explore the cobbles. Right. Take

1:30:46

videos. I'll try. It's hard enough

1:30:48

to keep the bike going with

1:30:51

one hand on there, with two hands on the bike.

1:30:53

Put the GoPro on the side of the trail then

1:30:55

go down and right up again so we can see

1:30:57

how you handle it. So that's a couple days but

1:31:00

mostly it's meetings, World Rugby Medical meetings and then there's

1:31:02

a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing that I'm attending

1:31:04

which will be in the news I'm sure in the

1:31:06

next two weeks. When I get back I

1:31:08

can talk about it but not enough. It's a big one.

1:31:11

And then we go to New York with

1:31:13

World Rugby to meet with the NFL because

1:31:16

as you know we've got shared concussion challenges

1:31:18

and so we're gonna meet, we meet with them

1:31:21

when we can to discuss what we're doing and

1:31:23

learn about what they're doing so that we can

1:31:25

benefit from the shared knowledge. Yes it's like a

1:31:27

fairly lengthy, fairly lengthy trip and busy. Gareth

1:31:30

just give us a quick heads up on

1:31:32

to the topics of discussion on our discourse

1:31:34

channel today. What can people look

1:31:36

forward to if you look at our sort of

1:31:39

top threads on discourse today? Oh

1:31:41

there's an interesting one which we were going

1:31:43

to touch on. I think Ross Promisee was

1:31:45

going to touch on it when we had

1:31:47

that time this morning about the differences between

1:31:50

cycling and running or transitioning from running to

1:31:52

cycling rather. So that'll have to be one

1:31:54

for another day. Apologies to Alastair who we

1:31:57

never got around to that one. a

1:32:00

few other things we've been talking as you

1:32:18

say about the taper, we've been talking about whether

1:32:21

or not the reported Mysteries

1:32:25

and Hold

1:32:38

up. What was that? Boring. No

1:32:40

flavor. That was as bad as

1:32:42

those leftovers you ate all week.

1:32:44

Kiki Palmer here, and it's time

1:32:46

to say hello to something fresh

1:32:48

and guilt-free. HelloFresh. Jazz up dinner

1:32:51

with pecan, crusted chicken, or garlic

1:32:53

butter shrimp scampi. Now that's music

1:32:55

to my mouth. HelloFresh. Let's

1:32:57

get this dinner party started.

1:32:59

Discover all the delicious possibilities

1:33:02

at hellofresh.com.