SSA Blog: Sports ethical line

The spotlight of doping in elite sport shines on. Over recent years, heroes have fallen, state-sponsored doping has been uncovered and numerous high-profile athletes have been sanctioned, stripped of medals and banned from competing following evidence of doping violations. Last week, Sir Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky were back in the news, casting further aspersions on the reputation of elite cycling…

On 5th March 2018, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) select committee released a statement declaring that, Team Sky ‘crossed an ethical line’ in their use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs). Specifically, the DCMS allege that the drugs administered, whilst therapeutic, were also devised and delivered to boost Wiggins’ performance levels.

"Drugs were being used by Team Sky, within World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules, to enhance the performance of riders and not just to treat medical need,"                              DCMS Select Committee (05/03/18).

This ‘ethical line’ presents a problem for sponsors and partners. Brands showcase their vision and values through their sponsorships to create a favourable position with the sports’ fans. How then to rationalise that sponsorship when a sports person or team follow the letter of the law, breaks no rules, but cross an ‘ethical line’. Practices are either legal or banned.

This might seem like a cynical stance, but literature from elite sport supports it. Smith and Stewart, in their 2015 overview of doping in sport, highlighted how athletes are pressured to use substances to enhance their performance whilst remaining ‘clean’. This includes the possibility for an athlete benefiting from elevated doses of a banned substance via a TUE. Athletes know natural talent is not sufficient to reach the top echelons of performance and competition. To reach this level, advanced training, coaching, supplements and substances were cited as a necessity. Before financial incentives even figure, the concept of sporting failure is less desirable than the threat of sanction for a doping violation or the potential risk to their health

Herein lies the issue with TUEs; most banned substances are those devised to cure illness but may also produce a performance enhancing effect. Like anyone, athletes get ill, suffer from chronic ailments and pick up injuries. A TUE is then required for the necessary medicine to help the athlete recover and the grey area of performance enhancement opens. A grey area that athletes, teams, doctors and organisations can venture into to pursue ‘legitimate’ marginal gains. In this pursuit, morality and ethics do not form part of the equation, legality, as stated by Overbye and Wagner (2013) in the international journal of drug policy, is the name of the game.

The researchers argue that whilst TUEs are less efficient than using banned substances in enhancing performance, manipulating the system to gain a TUE is infinitely more accessible, safe and low-risk. Indeed, they highlight that in a cohort of 638 elite athletes in Denmark, only 2% had ever applied for a TUE and had that application rejected. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a general distrust of the TUE system’s effectiveness in anti-doping exists.

With TUEs increasingly under the spotlight, brands partnering with elite sport must consider a response strategy to stories such as the one involving Wiggins and Team Sky. Whilst the DCMS’ conclusion over Team Sky’s TUE use may seem reasonable to many, it concludes that no rules were broken. In elite sport, this is all that matters to teams when it comes to doping.

Brands face a quandary. Should they stand by teams and athletes whose use of medication is questioned? Should they support athletes that fail tests due to innocent mistakes rather than deliberate cheating?

Controversially, Head and Nike stood by Maria Sharapova following her positive test for Meldonium in 2016. Porsche and Tag Heuer in contrast, terminated their contracts with the Russian star. Can the direct sporting performance values of Nike and Head help explain their stance vs those of Sharapova’s more lifestyle-based partnerships and the subsequent lack of negative backlash for all?

Athletes deserve the right to compete on a level playing field and to be safe when doing so. Anti-doping regulations and the TUE system should exist, but both apparently require more stringent regulation and enforcement to protect clean athletes and the sponsors involved in the sport. The idea that an athlete ends up on the right side of the rules but the wrong side of a so-called ethical line should be an anathema to all parties involved.

Only the governing bodies of sport can make the rule changes required to protect both athletes and sponsors. However, they seem unwilling or unable to make those difficult decisions. It may be time to take that responsibility away from organisations that are so intimately linked with the public perception of the sports they are policing. Maybe supporting organisations such as WADA could provide the next sponsorship opportunity for a forward-thinking brand.

Sport Science Agency works with brands, broadcasters, rights holders and agencies to create insight, experiences and content from the latest sport science research. If you want to know more just drop us a note via info@sportscienceagency.com and we can arrange to go for a healthy performance boosting drink. 

SSA Blog: VAR and the physicality of football

Last week saw the introduction, into competitive English football, on a trial basis, of the video assistant referee technology system (VAR). It follows last season’s successful implementation of goal line technology and is the latest in a growing number of virtual, tracking or predictive technologies introduced to support officials and referees across sport.

Arguments as to the benefits and drawbacks have been well reported. What has gained less coverage is the potential impact regarding players’ physical load during a game.

Throughout sport, rule changes and the introduction of technology have affected how the game is played and the nature of the players playing it. Tennis is a prime example.  Players often use the challenge system tactically, in an attempt to break opponents’ momentum or gain extra recovery time following a high-intensity rally.

Football at the highest level requires players to combine a number of fitness elements. It involves high intensity sprinting, accelerations, strength, an endurance base as well as the application of skill and mental agility to deal with tactical demands.

In the English Premier League, the average 90 minute game sees the ball in play for 56.17 minutes. Players are covering distances of nearly 11km per game of which over 10% is covered at high speed. But the biggest increase in activity levels has come in the number of high intensity runs players now make. Data from Barnes et al, back in 2014, showed that players were making 49% more high speed runs than in 2007 and the total distance and intensity numbers are expected to have continued to rise.

The game is undoubtedly speeding up though many have argued VAR may slow it down. What they actually mean is, VAR will impact the ball in play time. But can VAR actually increase ball in play time? Or could it lead to changes in player load and even greater physical demands?

A recent study examining the evolutionary changes in activity and recovery in Rugby League, published by Gabbett & Hulin (2017) in the Journal of Sport Sciences, showed the greatest impact on ‘ball in play’ time resulted from video referee stoppages. It also showed that ‘in game recovery’ time actually increased. So, while video referee referrals reduced the ‘ball in play’ time, it also produced greater recovery time for players, which can enable greater player load/exertion levels to be reached during games.

Could the same be a consequence of the introduction of VAR in football?

There are two areas to consider here:

1. Will VAR reduce ball in play time?
2. Will VAR effect in game recovery (and therefore training practices to address this)?

Until the system has been fully trialled and evaluated it is difficult to answer either of these questions. However anecdotal evidence from goal line technology points to more ball in play time as players no longer challenge the referee during breaks. This leads to play being resumed without incident. Evidence from Rugby League and Rugby union on the other hand, suggests that ball in play time has been reduced by the introduction of video technology as game time is lost during those time on and time off moments during referrals.

The really interesting analysis will be the impact, if any, on the players physical demands. Will, as we have seen in Rugby League, increased in game recovery time allow players to compete at even higher intensities once play resumes? Will more effective decision making mean less stoppages and a reduction of in game recovery? And what impact will this have regarding player preparation in order to cope with the potential physical challenges VAR might bring.  

It’s too early to know how VAR will impact player load and the physical demands of the Premier League.  As the system’s adoption increases, sport science teams will evaluate how its introduction impacts areas such as ball in play and in game recovery. If it does, as in both codes of Rugby, start to alter the physical demands of the game, the challenge for clubs will be to adapt training, ensuring players are prepared for these new demands. 

Sport Science Agency works with brands, broadcasters, rights holders and agencies to create insight, experiences and content from the latest sport science research. If you want to know more just drop us a note via info@sportscienceagency.com and we can arrange to go for a healthy performance boosting drink. 

SSA Blog: Sport Science in 2017

With 2017 drawing to a close we look back at three significant stories that shaped the sport science year and will continue to have an impact into 2018, both inside and outside the performance arena. 

Nike Breaking 2
Without doubt the biggest sport science story this year was Nike’s attempt to break the 2 hour marathon barrier. The 2 hour barrier is one of athletics last great challenges. Indeed, it was postulated as long ago as 1991 that a time of 1.57:58 was possible under perfect conditions. Nike’s project was four years in the making and brought together some of the best minds in sport science as well as an interesting group of 3 athletes who had been drawn from an initial 60 strong cohort. 

The combination of Nike’s financial backing, scientific excellence and some of the world’s elite performers lead many to believe a sub 2 hour time would be possible.   
As the project developed, it became clear that this would not be a legitimate world record attempt during one of the major marathon events. From a sport science point of view, this didn’t matter. If anything, it makes it more exciting as it allowed the sport science team to think the unthinkable and take the athletes outside the usual constraints of racing in order to seek the limits of human endurance.

Every aspect of performance was examined with an obvious emphasis on the training and preparation of the athletes.  Areas such as VO2max, Lactate Threshold and Running Economy were all evaluated at the start of the project to identify who the researchers thought were the athletes with the physiology capable of sustaining the training load and having a realistic chance of hitting the sub 2 hour goal.  

But physiology is only part of what makes an athlete great. Other areas the researchers looked at included the course, environmental temperature, humidity, altitude and obviously, being Nike research, the shoes. The researchers also became increasingly interested in the psychology of their runners. Ultimately the effort didn’t manage to produce a sub 2 hour performance - Eliud Kipchoge came within 25 seconds of achieving the goal. That is less than a second per mile.

When evaluating the effort, the main performance benefit seemed to come from the drafting formation, developed using support runners throughout the record attempt. Nike commissioned wind tunnel research to ensure they positioned support runners in the most effective formation to maximise the drafting effect. This finding may have huge potential for distance running in the future. In cycling, drafting and protecting the GC rider is a long-established principle. Running has always been seen as a more individual sport and while runners will often train together, rarely do they compete in such a strict team formation.

Nike’s Breaking 2 didn’t manage to achieve athletics' last great barrier, but with its drafting and team formation research, it has provided a model for how it might be achieved both in a scientific experiment and ultimately in a major city marathon.         

The Rise of the Aging Athlete
As human beings live longer, and medicine and sport science continue to develop, it should be no surprise that athletes have been able to take advantage and extend their careers. Roger Federer, Tom Brady, Zlatan Ibrahimović and Serena Williams have all dazzled fans, media and fellow performers this year despite their relative age, which has left people searching for the secret elixir of these supposed super agers.

As with much in sport at the elite level, an athlete’s ability to maintain performance into their 4th decade is a mix of genetic and lifestyle factors. Generally, the key anabolic hormones associated with muscle growth and maintenance begin to decline in the mid to late 30’s. This can have a particularly profound effect on an athlete’s ability to produce power which inevitably has an effect on performance elements such as sprinting, acceleration, striking force and change of direction speed.

New developments regarding training, diet, injury prevention and recovery strategies have allowed more athletes to maintain their careers into their early to mid 30’s. However, the ability to perform at the highest level needs to be supported by a strong motivational drive to train and also the emotional intelligence to accept limitations and plan in order to peak for specific periods during the year. 

Sport science will continue to elongate athlete’s careers. Better understanding of the genetics, training responses, diet and recovery will combine to support the physiological demands. But the greatest elements in the near future will be development of psychological and intellectual understanding to further help athletes develop the mental skills needed to cope with managing the latter stages of sporting careers.

This generation of athlete, with the support of developing sport science, has proved that age is no longer the barrier it once was. This has altered perceptions as to the impact older athletes can have. It will pave the way to extending athlete contracts and the age profile within which elite sport operates.
       
Welfare and Winning
Athlete welfare hit the back pages this year following a number of allegations made by athletes within the Olympic sport system. The cyclist Jess Varnish lead the wave of criticism directed at National Governing bodies funded by UK Sport and subscribing to the so called ‘no compromise’ strategy focused on Olympic and Paralympic success. 

The treatment and culture within which athletes were expected to perform began to come into question. Had the ‘no compromise’ system that has seen unprecedented Olympic success over the past decade been at the expense of athlete welfare? Or is an elite performance environment just that and not everyone can handle the demands they are faced with?

Athletes and coaches were asked for their opinions and experiences with many defending the systems that had helped them achieve their sporting goals. But the allegations kept coming.  

National governing bodies have employed performance lifestyle experts for a number of years in order to support the wider lifestyle aspects of athletes. The goal was to support athletes in developing world class performance habits while they are away from the track, pool or velodrome. However, for some, when the sport becomes all encompassing it can easily become too much, pressure builds, motivation dips and performance inevitably suffers. 

Across sport, coaches and athletes will have different approaches, views, interests and motivational strategies. This is no different from any workplace. In the major professional sports, players have the ability to move and perhaps find a team that ‘fits’ their outlook and personality. Within the Olympic system in the UK, each sport generally only allows athletes one major training environment within which they have to adhere to the culture and expectations that are often entrenched. 

Performance systems are key to producing success. The continuity that exists across the British system has turned Team GB into a global sporting powerhouse (compare this with the relative reactionary approach seen within football). However, these systems need to continually evolve and develop in order to support athletes from a broader talent pool, often that broader talent pool is a consequence of their own previous success. 

Elite sport is tough. Many with the physical talent, simply don’t have the psychological resilience, drive or desire to sustain the training load and lifestyle sacrifices needed. Pushing athletes mentally as well as physically is part of the selection process. It allows coaches and performance managers to assess how athletes perform under pressure and ultimately evaluate if they are developing the required skills to win on the biggest stage. This will mean athletes taken out of their comfort zone, it will mean pressure to perform in training and it will mean being able to meet high standards across everything they do, with consequences if these challenges cannot be successfully met. 

The challenge of sport science is to recognise the individuality of athletes and create systems that can dial up or down the support and challenges that athletes need in order to progress their careers, be that within the sport or leaving it to focus on other challenges.

As we look forward to an Olympic year in 2018 the trajectory for sport science is only upward. The increase in financial rewards across professional sport, the global attention an Olympic Games brings and the continuous health challenges we face, all look to sport science for support. The development in technology, the increased interest in psychology and advances in genetic medicine will provide new avenues for sport Science to explore in the coming years. Who knows what 2018 will bring, but you can be sure sport science will be at the forefront.