An idea of how much all team who take part in the Champion$ League make and why the competition i$ $OOO inten$e !
Manchester United were handed US$$55 million from Uefa this week in broadcasting and marketing revenue from last season’s Champions League. The amount, the highest of any team in Europe, is another demonstration of the lucrative nature of the competition.
The funds created by participation in it have helped United, along with Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea - who received US$52 million from last season’s competition - to develop a virtual stranglehold on the English Premier League.
Barcelona, the tournament champions, received US$52.7 million for their efforts. United, the beaten finalists, received more because of the larger contribution of English broadcasters to the Uefa pot.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Q & A with Dr. Bengt Kayser on the Doping Dilemma in Sport
Brought to you again by the wonderful folks at Science of Sport - enlighten yourselves.
Le Tour de France has now passed us by, although news from the cycling world is still coming thick and fast as rumours abound about who might and might not move to the new Team Radioshack in 2010. Also, the million dollar question is where will Alberto Contador ride in 2010? So many questions remain about Astana's future makeup---and Vinokourov's comeback---and Radioshack seems to have scooped many of the very good support riders from the current Astana. For some it might read like a soap opera on wheels, but that is part of the drama of cycling!
And we all know that drama is never far from cycling, even after the tour, because it was just announced that Mikael Astarloza, winner of Stage 16 into Bourg-Saint Maurice, tested positive for EPO on 26 June, just prior to the start of the tour. This follows on a positive test for Inigo Landaluze for CERA back in June during the Dauphine Libere stage race, announced during the Tour de France, which kind of flew under our radar. As an aside, there are very interesting Wikipedia pages listing all of the positive tests in sport, and also in cycling. Unfortunately, you have to check back often for updates!
But just when it seemed that cycling was getting things under control we see that the positives still persist and are very much still part of the scenery. Thankfully Landaluze admitted outright to his doping and saved us from any kind of protracted legal battle about lab procedures and test results.
Interestingly, the same day we received this news about Astarloza, we also received answer to a Q & A from Dr. Bengt Kayser, a medical doctor and also a Ph.D. and well published sports scientist from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. Back in early June I attended the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting, and Bengt was one speaker in a symposium titled, "Anti-doping efforts: Is it worth it?" Bengt presented across from Tom Murray, president and CEO of The Hastings Institute in New York.
The symposium was not really a "for/against" debate, but both Tom and Bengt presented thorough and compelling arguments to strive to a 100% clean sport (Tom) and to consider some alternatives to the current situation (Bengt). To sum up, Bengt's main position is that attempts to prohibit doping are doomed to failure, and therefore the only pragmatic response we should be striving for is regulation or control, not prohibition. Bengt has kindly rewarded us with the answers to a few questions, which come to us just as this most recent positive test was announced.
So, is it worth it?
The primary message I took away from this symposium is that even as much as I think about doping in sport and consider myself a very well-informed fan due to my sports science background, there are many valid questions and challenges to the current situation. Mostly, these are important arguments that apply more to our society but are nevertheless important to how we frame and approach the problem of doping in sport. The problem---not how much doping, but rather the fact that it exists---is much bigger than you think when one stops and places it in the much bigger picture of life. Sport is not isolated in a little box outside of our cultures and societies, and as such the larger cultural and societal forces influence sporting culture and sporting "society." But enough social science already. . .On with the Q&A!
Sports Scientists:What are the primary reasons to permit controlled use of performance-enhancing substances?
Bengt Kayser:1) Public health aspect: because doping and doping-like practices are forced into hiding, especially outside elite sport, there is increased prevalence of dangerous behavior including sharing of syringes and the use of products of uncertain origin. The best example is anabolic steroid use for body building. Repression will not work, certainly not in a democratic society; therefore evidence-based controlled use and harm reduction must be discussed as potential alternatives for more pragmatic solutions. This is already partly being done for steroid users in the UK and Australia, with some success since more syringes are being exchanged for steroid injection than for heroin in the UK. [SS: Very interesting fact, that speaks to the larger societal issues at work in this debate.]
2) Anti-doping cannot be successful. There are limits to testing technology and in order to prevent false accusations from laboratory uncertainty (sensitivity and sensibility) the cut-off levels anti-doping uses have to remain on the safe side leaving considerable space for well-accomplished athletes to stay under the radar.
This is problematic since the aim of anti-doping is to be 100% certain that the winners are clean, but there is no way to tell that with certainty. Remember that Rasmussen and Jones never tested positive despite numerous tests. [And let's not forget Bernard Kohl, who alleges that he doped for a long time before finally testing positve--SS] Today a champion is unfortunately a suspect by definition. The discussions in the press and on the web of the 2009 Tour and other championships show this perpetual suspicion clearly.
3) The trend of anti-doping is towards serious intrusion into the private sphere of the athlete. Reporting one’s whereabouts 365 days a year is quite something. There is even talk of carrying a GPS to be tracked at all-time. Genetic profiling is being used for forensic use. This all points towards a potentially dangerous slippery slope towards wide-spread controls in society at large. I find the prospect of a totalitarian system of ubiquitous control rather disconcerting. Are we going towards urine control in students before an exam? Blood passports in kids who exhibit talent in a given sport?
SS:Do you feel athletes should be able to take any drug in therapeutic doses so long as the doctors disclose the information? If so, what will this accomplish?
BK:I presume you mean therapeutic in the sense not to treat a disease but in doses that come with acceptable risk. [Correct---SS] Yes, that is a potential way to go about it. Disclose and observe. It would lead to transparency and potential for evidence-based advice. It is very likely that the majority of the drugs on the WADA list do not have performance improving effects. If this can be proved the use of such products may become less popular.
SS:Was there a time when you bought into the current model of doping control? Or was there perhaps a time when your views were more "innocent" towards doping in sport?
BK:Before the introduction of the present coercive system I thought that the system was more or less well self-regulating. But I never believed in the current model, certainly not when I discovered the whereabouts rule and other intrusions in the private sphere of the elite athlete. But in principle, as long as the ‘no-doping’ rule is in effect I find that one should not dope. This is cheating, which is presumably not right. I find that one should, again in principle, obey to the prevailing rule, but one may question the rule finding it in part ineffective, potentially dangerous, and not anchored in sufficiently solid reasoning to accept its side effects. Rules can change and do change when it is found that they do not work as well as hoped.
I predict that the anti-doping rule will change, probably not in the next 10 years, but thereafter. Think about how the world will look like 50 years from now---not many more world records to beat since we will have reached the limit of human performance (one cannot run the 100m in zero seconds and therefore the improvement of the record will become less and less). And a prospect of a performance enhanced society, where most citizens use technology to enhance, whereas the modern gladiators still stick to ‘natural means’ while competing, looks rather unrealistic to me.
SS: When did you first realize that we needed a different approach to anti-doping, or when did your paradigm shift?
BK:I first realized what was happening when I attended a symposium at an international sports federation and heard anti-doping officials, including physicians, talk about their work and the anti-doping rules. It was truly an eye-opening experience, I was shocked. I thought we had escaped from Big Brother, but there he was. Also the way with which the anti-doping officials talked about athletes who were potentially doping was rather chilling. It all came with a strong flavor of ‘the end justifies the means’, even if this would imply sacrifice from (of) athletes.
SS: Do you feel the new biological passport is the answer to sports doping problems? What are its pros/cons, why will it or why won't it work?
BK:Again, it can never be 100%. Of course, many doping practices will become extremely difficult or impossible, but many others continue, at low levels, or undiscovered since not included in the panel of measurements.
The accusation of innocent athletes (false positives are certain to occur the more we test) is something very uncomfortable to me; the sacrifice of innocents on the altar of what is known as ‘the spirit of sport’ is in my view difficult to accept. There is also the strict liability rule that is causing quite some harm, when athletes, clearly not because of willingly doping, find themselves accused and punished with potential devastating consequences on their private and professional lives.
SS: What can you say to the sports fans who still believe that the current controls are working?
BK:Open your ears and eyes and think.
Le Tour de France has now passed us by, although news from the cycling world is still coming thick and fast as rumours abound about who might and might not move to the new Team Radioshack in 2010. Also, the million dollar question is where will Alberto Contador ride in 2010? So many questions remain about Astana's future makeup---and Vinokourov's comeback---and Radioshack seems to have scooped many of the very good support riders from the current Astana. For some it might read like a soap opera on wheels, but that is part of the drama of cycling!
And we all know that drama is never far from cycling, even after the tour, because it was just announced that Mikael Astarloza, winner of Stage 16 into Bourg-Saint Maurice, tested positive for EPO on 26 June, just prior to the start of the tour. This follows on a positive test for Inigo Landaluze for CERA back in June during the Dauphine Libere stage race, announced during the Tour de France, which kind of flew under our radar. As an aside, there are very interesting Wikipedia pages listing all of the positive tests in sport, and also in cycling. Unfortunately, you have to check back often for updates!
But just when it seemed that cycling was getting things under control we see that the positives still persist and are very much still part of the scenery. Thankfully Landaluze admitted outright to his doping and saved us from any kind of protracted legal battle about lab procedures and test results.
Interestingly, the same day we received this news about Astarloza, we also received answer to a Q & A from Dr. Bengt Kayser, a medical doctor and also a Ph.D. and well published sports scientist from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. Back in early June I attended the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting, and Bengt was one speaker in a symposium titled, "Anti-doping efforts: Is it worth it?" Bengt presented across from Tom Murray, president and CEO of The Hastings Institute in New York.
The symposium was not really a "for/against" debate, but both Tom and Bengt presented thorough and compelling arguments to strive to a 100% clean sport (Tom) and to consider some alternatives to the current situation (Bengt). To sum up, Bengt's main position is that attempts to prohibit doping are doomed to failure, and therefore the only pragmatic response we should be striving for is regulation or control, not prohibition. Bengt has kindly rewarded us with the answers to a few questions, which come to us just as this most recent positive test was announced.
So, is it worth it?
The primary message I took away from this symposium is that even as much as I think about doping in sport and consider myself a very well-informed fan due to my sports science background, there are many valid questions and challenges to the current situation. Mostly, these are important arguments that apply more to our society but are nevertheless important to how we frame and approach the problem of doping in sport. The problem---not how much doping, but rather the fact that it exists---is much bigger than you think when one stops and places it in the much bigger picture of life. Sport is not isolated in a little box outside of our cultures and societies, and as such the larger cultural and societal forces influence sporting culture and sporting "society." But enough social science already. . .On with the Q&A!
Sports Scientists:What are the primary reasons to permit controlled use of performance-enhancing substances?
Bengt Kayser:1) Public health aspect: because doping and doping-like practices are forced into hiding, especially outside elite sport, there is increased prevalence of dangerous behavior including sharing of syringes and the use of products of uncertain origin. The best example is anabolic steroid use for body building. Repression will not work, certainly not in a democratic society; therefore evidence-based controlled use and harm reduction must be discussed as potential alternatives for more pragmatic solutions. This is already partly being done for steroid users in the UK and Australia, with some success since more syringes are being exchanged for steroid injection than for heroin in the UK. [SS: Very interesting fact, that speaks to the larger societal issues at work in this debate.]
2) Anti-doping cannot be successful. There are limits to testing technology and in order to prevent false accusations from laboratory uncertainty (sensitivity and sensibility) the cut-off levels anti-doping uses have to remain on the safe side leaving considerable space for well-accomplished athletes to stay under the radar.
This is problematic since the aim of anti-doping is to be 100% certain that the winners are clean, but there is no way to tell that with certainty. Remember that Rasmussen and Jones never tested positive despite numerous tests. [And let's not forget Bernard Kohl, who alleges that he doped for a long time before finally testing positve--SS] Today a champion is unfortunately a suspect by definition. The discussions in the press and on the web of the 2009 Tour and other championships show this perpetual suspicion clearly.
3) The trend of anti-doping is towards serious intrusion into the private sphere of the athlete. Reporting one’s whereabouts 365 days a year is quite something. There is even talk of carrying a GPS to be tracked at all-time. Genetic profiling is being used for forensic use. This all points towards a potentially dangerous slippery slope towards wide-spread controls in society at large. I find the prospect of a totalitarian system of ubiquitous control rather disconcerting. Are we going towards urine control in students before an exam? Blood passports in kids who exhibit talent in a given sport?
SS:Do you feel athletes should be able to take any drug in therapeutic doses so long as the doctors disclose the information? If so, what will this accomplish?
BK:I presume you mean therapeutic in the sense not to treat a disease but in doses that come with acceptable risk. [Correct---SS] Yes, that is a potential way to go about it. Disclose and observe. It would lead to transparency and potential for evidence-based advice. It is very likely that the majority of the drugs on the WADA list do not have performance improving effects. If this can be proved the use of such products may become less popular.
SS:Was there a time when you bought into the current model of doping control? Or was there perhaps a time when your views were more "innocent" towards doping in sport?
BK:Before the introduction of the present coercive system I thought that the system was more or less well self-regulating. But I never believed in the current model, certainly not when I discovered the whereabouts rule and other intrusions in the private sphere of the elite athlete. But in principle, as long as the ‘no-doping’ rule is in effect I find that one should not dope. This is cheating, which is presumably not right. I find that one should, again in principle, obey to the prevailing rule, but one may question the rule finding it in part ineffective, potentially dangerous, and not anchored in sufficiently solid reasoning to accept its side effects. Rules can change and do change when it is found that they do not work as well as hoped.
I predict that the anti-doping rule will change, probably not in the next 10 years, but thereafter. Think about how the world will look like 50 years from now---not many more world records to beat since we will have reached the limit of human performance (one cannot run the 100m in zero seconds and therefore the improvement of the record will become less and less). And a prospect of a performance enhanced society, where most citizens use technology to enhance, whereas the modern gladiators still stick to ‘natural means’ while competing, looks rather unrealistic to me.
SS: When did you first realize that we needed a different approach to anti-doping, or when did your paradigm shift?
BK:I first realized what was happening when I attended a symposium at an international sports federation and heard anti-doping officials, including physicians, talk about their work and the anti-doping rules. It was truly an eye-opening experience, I was shocked. I thought we had escaped from Big Brother, but there he was. Also the way with which the anti-doping officials talked about athletes who were potentially doping was rather chilling. It all came with a strong flavor of ‘the end justifies the means’, even if this would imply sacrifice from (of) athletes.
SS: Do you feel the new biological passport is the answer to sports doping problems? What are its pros/cons, why will it or why won't it work?
BK:Again, it can never be 100%. Of course, many doping practices will become extremely difficult or impossible, but many others continue, at low levels, or undiscovered since not included in the panel of measurements.
The accusation of innocent athletes (false positives are certain to occur the more we test) is something very uncomfortable to me; the sacrifice of innocents on the altar of what is known as ‘the spirit of sport’ is in my view difficult to accept. There is also the strict liability rule that is causing quite some harm, when athletes, clearly not because of willingly doping, find themselves accused and punished with potential devastating consequences on their private and professional lives.
SS: What can you say to the sports fans who still believe that the current controls are working?
BK:Open your ears and eyes and think.
The World's 200 Most Valuable Sports Properties
The list is out for 2009. There were some surprises, like the IPL (India), and some expected like Tiger Woods. But great work by Adam Fraser and the SportsPro magazine team. Enjoy!
SportsPro magazine has published the world’s first value ranking of sports properties in its July/August issue, out now.
Unsurprisingly, the National Football League (NFL) is ranked as the world’s most valuable sports property, with a value of US$4.5 billion. It is followed at the top of the table by three other American properties – Major League Baseball (MLB) (US$3.9 billion), the NBA (US$3.35 billion) and Nascar (US$1.9 billion). The newest property in the list is the Indian Premier League (IPL), which is valued at US$1.6 billion - a staggering achievement for a two-year-old property.
The highest ranked European team property is the Ferrari Formula One team (7th) at a value of US$1.55 billion, followed by Manchester United Football Club (8th) at US$1.495 billion. The most valuable American sports club is the Dallas Cowboys (10th), with the NFL team valued at US$1.278 billion.
Tiger Woods (11th) is the highest rated athlete property with a value of US$1.25 billion, followed by Jack Nicklaus (16th) at US$1 billion. Golfers dominate the athletes’ table because of the high earnings from designing golf courses; Tiger Woods is expected to earn over a billion dollars from designing courses in the next decade and will almost certainly eclipse his on-course earnings.
David and Victoria’s Beckham Brand Ltd property (88th) is valued at US$375 million.Many single annual events appear, led by the Wimbledon tennis championships (22nd) valued at US$900 million.
Unsurprisingly, the most valuable competition is the Fifa World Cup (5th) valued at US$1.7 billion, ahead of the Summer Olympic Games (15th) at US$1.04 billion. The Uefa Champions League (13th) is valued at US$1.1 billion, eclipsing the Summer Olympics due to its annual status.
SportsPro magazine has published the world’s first value ranking of sports properties in its July/August issue, out now.
Unsurprisingly, the National Football League (NFL) is ranked as the world’s most valuable sports property, with a value of US$4.5 billion. It is followed at the top of the table by three other American properties – Major League Baseball (MLB) (US$3.9 billion), the NBA (US$3.35 billion) and Nascar (US$1.9 billion). The newest property in the list is the Indian Premier League (IPL), which is valued at US$1.6 billion - a staggering achievement for a two-year-old property.
The highest ranked European team property is the Ferrari Formula One team (7th) at a value of US$1.55 billion, followed by Manchester United Football Club (8th) at US$1.495 billion. The most valuable American sports club is the Dallas Cowboys (10th), with the NFL team valued at US$1.278 billion.
Tiger Woods (11th) is the highest rated athlete property with a value of US$1.25 billion, followed by Jack Nicklaus (16th) at US$1 billion. Golfers dominate the athletes’ table because of the high earnings from designing golf courses; Tiger Woods is expected to earn over a billion dollars from designing courses in the next decade and will almost certainly eclipse his on-course earnings.
David and Victoria’s Beckham Brand Ltd property (88th) is valued at US$375 million.Many single annual events appear, led by the Wimbledon tennis championships (22nd) valued at US$900 million.
Unsurprisingly, the most valuable competition is the Fifa World Cup (5th) valued at US$1.7 billion, ahead of the Summer Olympic Games (15th) at US$1.04 billion. The Uefa Champions League (13th) is valued at US$1.1 billion, eclipsing the Summer Olympics due to its annual status.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sensitivities - RE: OBAMA
The jokes have started...Is the White House still the White House as Obama is in it ? etc and now all comedians, satirists, comics, cartoonists are threading thin ice when making jokes and drawing the chief executive. One can never be too careful in today's world....read on.
This cartoon image appeared in the New York Post on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism on media websites. — AP pic
NEW YORK, Feb 21 — Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz was in front of a classroom full of black and Latino kids, drawing presidents. He sketched Bush, then Clinton. Next came his favourite, the man he voted for: Obama. "Hey, those lips are big," Alcaraz heard a black girl say from the back of the room.
Alcaraz was disturbed. "I try to bend over backwards not to make him look like a cartoon stereotype," and certainly not a racial stereotype, he said.
Editorial cartoonists are bending over backwards a lot these days, as they try to satirise the nation's first black president. And when they don't, the result is the kind of outcry that erupted this week after a New York Post cartoon featured a bloody chimpanzee — intentionally or unintentionally evoking racist images of the past.
The problem is, cartoonists make their living by making fun of people — especially presidents — and exaggerating their features and foibles.
The best political cartoons are "like an X-ray machine," said Amelia Rauser, an art history professor at Franklin & Marshall College and author of "Caricature Unmasked," which examines the art form's historical role in political discourse.
"You have to deform someone facially in order to make a larger point about their character," Rauser said. "But that deformity reveals their inner truth and makes them look more like themselves."
The late Herblock often saddled Richard Nixon with an enormous cartoon nose. Liberals drew George W. Bush like a simpleton, or worse. There have been minor kerfluffles from the left about drawing Hillary Clinton as insufficiently feminine, and from the right about depicting Condoleezza Rice as servile to Bush.
Drawings of Obama, however, must contend with America's history of degrading racial imagery, from ape comparisons to enormous "Sambo" lips. (Caricatures of the president's admittedly large ears have so far escaped scrutiny.)
Michael Cavna, who blogs about comics for The Washington Post, wrote that "an unnerving number of North America's political cartoonists are bizarrely obsessed with Obama's lips." He followed with a detailed analysis of several cartoons where Obama's lips were large, some shade of blue, or both.
On Wednesday, the New York Post published an editorial cartoon showing a chimp shot to death by police officers. "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus Bill," the caption reads.
Amid widespread black condemnation, the Post initially defended the panel by its longtime cartoonist Sean Delonas, saying it referred to a chimp that recently attacked its owner's friend and was killed by police. The newspaper apologised "to those who were offended" after 200 protecters picketed the Post offices on Thursday.
During the presidential campaign, The New Yorker magazine was accused of racism for an infamous cartoon of Obama dressed as a Muslim, fist-bumping his wife Michelle, who was toting a machine gun and sporting a black-power Afro. The magazine said it was satirizing right-wing smears of the Obamas.
Scott Stantis, editorial cartoonist for The Birmingham (Alabama) News, said he received several complaints this week that his Obama drawings look "simian". As a conservative in a city that's 77 per cent black, Stantis has learned to consider the feelings of his audience.
"Being the typical American editorial cartoonist — doughy, white, middle-aged — I'm more than willing to accept that I don't know what may or may not be offensive," he said. "But editorial cartoons are supposed to be offensive, and provocative. We're entering new waters here. What can you use or not use?"
"All my characters look simian," he said. "I don't make Obama look nearly as simian as our former Gov Fob James, who I DID draw as a monkey, on more than one occasion. And he's a white guy ... I'm sorry, but when it comes to African-Americans, you just don't draw monkeys."
Ted Rall, president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, said that Obama's race has affected how his colleagues do their jobs: "Without a doubt, people are stepping more gingerly. People are tiptoeing their way through this."
Rall, who is liberal, said it's harder to take shots at Obama because he's smart, charming and handsome, "so when you attack the personality, people suspect there's only one reason: It's gotta be his race. My conservative cartoonist friends find it very frustrating."
One of those conservative friends, Mike Lester of the Rome News Tribune in Georgia, said that when he was growing up, "if we didn't make fun of you, we didn't like you."
Perhaps race relations would improve, Lester said, if black people lightened up a bit: "They're not too good (at being) made fun of. We can all take a joke."
Lester said Rall told him before the election that an Obama presidency would be good for conservative cartoonists, but "it's been just the opposite. I find myself having to temper my comments. I'm tired of it. (Obama) wants my money, he wants me to pay for my neighbour's foreclosed house that he can't afford.
"Race has nothing to do with it."
That's what Delonas said about his cartoon in the Post. So as the nation's edgy fraternity of editorial cartoonists continues to unload on Obama, lines will inevitably be crossed again.
"Being an editorial cartoonist is a high-wire act," Rall said. "If you're any good, you're taking lots of chances all the time. When you take chances, you fall and you screw up." — AP
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Am forwarding some amazing scientific work that is being done by experts in our discipline. It sure deserves a wider exposure. It should enthrall you! All credits to Dr. Ross Tucker & Dr. Jonathan Dugas. and their team from The Science of Sport. Enjoy!
Haile Gebrselassie's splits from Dubai
Therefore, the weather ultimately put paid to any hopes that may have existed. However, as I wrote yesterday, I don't think it would be correct to say "the weather denied him the record". That assumes that the record was a guarantee, and given that he need to at least match the spectacular finish in Berlin, the outcome in Dubai was anything but certain. Very importantly, he needed it without any company (the pacemakers were gone by then. Berlin was a little different), and that would have been tough, even on a good day. So what the weather did is deny him the CHANCE - he had put himself in an excellent position, equal to Berlin, but he still needed a mighty good last 10km. I guess we'll never know.
One other observation - the early pace in Dubai was quite conservative - 14:50 for the first 5km, and then it really started to pick up. That slower than in Berlin (which was too quick), and different from previous years. I can't say that's down to anything. The other amazing thing is the consistency of pacing between about 10km and 26km. Apart from one 'aberration' at 22km, he reeled off 16 consecutive kilometers within two seconds of 2:55. Quite amazing.
Isn’t it ??
Enthralled ~ Indy
Following on from yesterday, here are the splits from Haile Gebrselassie's 2:05:29 in Dubai. Thanks to Ray for pointing out the LetsRun thread with some splits, but especially to Sean Hartnett, who kindly provided these detailed times from the race (Sean was responsible for the "RaceTracker", which was featured before the race in an IAAF article. Thanks Sean, hope your food poisoning has been conquered!)
The graph shows the splits from Dubai, compared directly to those from Berlin last year, when the 2:03:59 record was set. I've indicated the pace required for the world record with the dashed purple line, but bear in mind that the numbers you see are a direct comparison between the races.
The boxes at the bottom are the comparison. Dubai is shown in blue, Berlin in Orange, and then the green and red boxes show the time difference in the 5km intervals between the two (green when Geb is ahead of the record from Berlin, red when he is behind). At the top of the graph I've shown the overall gap between Berlin and Dubai. (you might need to click on the graph to enlarge - had to squeeze information in)
Brief analysis
Brief analysis
It's very apparent what transpired in Dubai - the record was on up to about 30 km, and then the final 10km cost him enormous time. The weather reportedly worsened at about 35km, which would seemingly track the gradual slowing down. Bear in mind that in Berlin, Gebrselassie finished astonishingly fast - his final 10km were covered in 29:09! So given that he was 8 seconds faster than Berlin at the 30km mark, he still required an exceptional finish in Dubai.
In fact, he needed to speed up - his time at 32km was 1:34:17, which meant that he needed to run the final 10.2 km in 29:43, which is a pace of 2:54.8/km. That is the SAME SPEED as he finished with in Berlin (a 29:08 10km), and is FASTER than he'd been going up to that point (2:56/km), even without the weather complication.
Therefore, the weather ultimately put paid to any hopes that may have existed. However, as I wrote yesterday, I don't think it would be correct to say "the weather denied him the record". That assumes that the record was a guarantee, and given that he need to at least match the spectacular finish in Berlin, the outcome in Dubai was anything but certain. Very importantly, he needed it without any company (the pacemakers were gone by then. Berlin was a little different), and that would have been tough, even on a good day. So what the weather did is deny him the CHANCE - he had put himself in an excellent position, equal to Berlin, but he still needed a mighty good last 10km. I guess we'll never know.
One other observation - the early pace in Dubai was quite conservative - 14:50 for the first 5km, and then it really started to pick up. That slower than in Berlin (which was too quick), and different from previous years. I can't say that's down to anything. The other amazing thing is the consistency of pacing between about 10km and 26km. Apart from one 'aberration' at 22km, he reeled off 16 consecutive kilometers within two seconds of 2:55. Quite amazing.
Isn’t it ??
Enthralled ~ Indy
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Air Force One
There has been much interest in everything Obama recently, with President Barack Obama taking his oath of office on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. Saw the Air Force One write up and was fascinated and I know that many of you would be too - Enjoy !
No matter where in the world the President travels, if he flies in an Air Force jet, the plane is called Air Force One. Technically, Air Force One is the call sign of any Air Force aircraft carrying the President. In practice, however, Air Force One is used to refer to one of two highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft, which carry the tail codes 28000 and 29000. The Air Force designation for the aircraft is VC-25A.
Air Force One is one of the most recognizable symbols of the presidency, spawning countless references not just in American culture but across the world. Emblazoned with the words “United States of America,” the American flag, and the Seal of the President of the United States, it is an undeniable presence wherever it flies or docks.
Capable of refueling midair, Air Force One has unlimited range and can carry the President wherever he needs to travel. The onboard electronics are hardened to protect against an electromagnetic pulse, and Air Force One is equipped with advanced secure communications equipment, allowing the aircraft to function as a mobile command center in the event of an attack on the United States.
Inside, the President and his travel companions enjoy 4,000 square feet of floor space on three levels, including an extensive suite for the President that features a large office, lavatory, and conference room. Air Force One includes a medical suite that can function as an operating room, and a doctor is permanently on board. The plane’s two food preparation galleys can feed 100 people at a time.
Air Force One also has quarters for those who accompany the President, including senior advisors, Secret Service officers, traveling press, and other guests. Several cargo planes typically fly ahead of Air Force One to provide the President with services needed in remote locations.
Air Force One is maintained and operated by the Presidential Airlift Group, part of the White House Military Office. The Airlift Group was founded in 1944 as the Presidential Pilot Office at the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. For the next 20 years, various propeller driven aircraft served the President.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy became the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft, a modified Boeing 707. Over the years, several other jet aircraft have been used, with the first of the current aircraft being delivered in 1990 during the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Look who else is jumping on the bandwagon...
With economies going south of late, many industries are showing up in Washington for a reprieve, in the form of an economic stimulus - (the car manufacturers were in town recently). Some feel that the car manufacturers were just there to 'join the band' of the many badly affected (not to mention badly managed) companies and since Washington was in the mood of giving, who could blame them?
But now, look who else is in Washington with their begging bowls...and as (creatively) they put it, may have a decent shot of the pie! Enjoy...
Porn moguls ask Washington for billion-dollar bailout
Two porn moguls including Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt are seeking a five-billion-dollar bailout from Washington, arguing that the limp US economy has thrown cold water on the adult entertainment industry.
Flynt and "Girls Gone Wild" video series creator Joe Francis asked the newly convened 111th Congress "to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America" in a bailout move similar to the one set aside for US auto manufacturers.
"Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation's most important businesses, (and) we feel we deserve the same consideration," Francis said in a statement.
"In difficult economic times, Americans turn to entertainment for relief. More and more, the kind of entertainment they turn to is adult entertainment."
The pair were quick to admit that "the 13-billion-dollar industry is in no fear of collapse, but why take chances?"
Francis, recently imprisoned for nearly a year on a prostitution-related charge after pleading no contest in a plea bargain, cited industry figures that show adult DVD sales and rentals decreasing 22 percent in 2008, as people turn to the Internet for adult entertainment.
"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind," Flynt said.
"It's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."
Flynt said people were "too depressed to be sexually active."
"This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such, but they cannot do without sex."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
