Join Discourse

Nutrition tips, training insight, performance debates, sports opinions — if you’re into it, we’re talking about it. Become part of the “Science of Sport” Discourse community via Patreon.

Show notes

This week on Spotlight, we take a tour through some of the big stories in sport and sports science right now—from race tactics and concussion protocols to doping ethics, expert credibility, and how we identify and develop talent.

We start with a lively discussion on the Giro d’Italia and that gravel stage. Was it thrilling unpredictability—or dangerous chaos? As the General Classification gets a dramatic shake-up, we debate whether the pursuit of entertainment justifies what some see as random, unfair risk and compromised race integrity. Do stages like this belong in a Grand Tour, or are they an unwelcome injection of chance into a sport built on precision and control?

From there, we shift to cycling’s ongoing concussion challenges. Jonas Vingegaard’s recent comments compel questions about whether current policies do enough to manage brain injuries. Despite a policy that asks multiple people in the race to identify possible cases, the sport appears to be struggling to accurately identify who gets tested, when and how. Are critical medical decisions still slipping through the cracks because the wrong people, with misaligned incentives, are being asked to make them under pressure?

Then it’s time for our first featured topic: the evolution of the Enhanced Games. With swimmer James Magnussen chasing a chemically-aided world record and a million-dollar prize, we unpack the ethical and medical dangers of performance enhancement. What are the risks—for athlete health, for fairness, and for the messages it sends to the next generation?

Next, we ask: How do you know who to trust? In an age of slick communication and pseudo-expertise, we explore the credibility of experts, and discover why true experts often sound less confident, not more. Ross explains how confidence can be a red flag, and why uncertainty and nuance are often markers of real scientific thinking.

Finally, we dive into the messy reality of Talent ID. Ross explains four common errors—especially the “ghosts” created when resource-strained systems make early, high-stakes decisions that can harm both performance and people.

We close with a brief segment on doping in Ironman, and why the “contaminated meat” excuse likely doesn’t hold up—though science says it’s not entirely impossible.

Links

• Vingegaard on his concussion omission
• The UCI Concussion Policy that identifies all the right people to call for tests, but that frequently seems not to achieve this
• David Epstein's recent article on fact checking and the illusion of expertise
• One example of the research studies used to sell BPC157, despite being in rats and showing nothing of the sort of promises companies make

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Become a Discourse member

Enjoy the pod? Support us with a small monthly donation on Patreon and unlock access to our exclusive Discourse community—deep dives, hot takes, and smarter sport talk await!

In this week’s Spotlight, we dive into the science behind an eye-watering nutrition number: 200 grams of carbohydrate per hour. That’s what elite Ironman Cameron Wurf reportedly consumed during a record-breaking bike leg in Texas. But does the body actually use it all—or is there a ceiling to sugar oxidation? Ross and Gareth break down a recent study comparing 120g and 90g per hour in trained cyclists, revealing how much of that fuel actually gets burned, and whether it has the purported effects on fuel use during exercise. Before we hit the carb overload, we’ve got a mix of big stories from across the sporting world:

🎾 IV drips and bans in tennis – Australian pro Max Purcell has been hit with an 18-month doping ban for intravenous vitamin infusions. We unpack the rules, his case and discover some other athletes who have fallen foul of the IV rule

🏏 Cannabis and cricket – South Africa’s Kagiso Rabada served a one month suspension for a ‘recreational drug’. We revisit the criteria WADA uses to ban substances and ask: should cannabis really be on the list?

🏃‍♂️ The teen sprint takeover – A 17-year-old ran a wind-assisted 9.92s, with two ninth-graders just behind him, breaking 10.2s. They join Gout Gout as teen phenoms with bright futures

🔬 Publish, perish—or post? – We reflect on a growing reality in science: if researchers aren't visible and able to communicate beyond journals, they risk irrelevance. Is it now “share or disappear”?

Show notes

• The long detailed piece by Ben Rothenberg on the Max Purcell doping ban
• Ryan Lochte got done for the same offence, no investigation needed - he served himself up on an Instagram post!
• A Newsweek article, published after Sha'Carri Richardson's cannabis ban, on how the drug came to be on the WADA list
• Interesting piece on Gout Gout's coach, Di Sheppard
• Article on Cam Wurf's Ironman fuelling strategy that kicked off today's main topic
• WADA's scientists defend cannabis' presence on the banned list
• Recent review showing no performance enhancing effects of cannabis
• The Podlogar article comparing 90 to 120 g/h that we discuss

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join The Discourse Community

If you enjoy the podcast, you’ll love our Discourse community. Become a member of “The Science of Sport” community by joining with a small monthly pledge on Patreon — and be part of the conversation behind the conversation.

Show notes

In this week’s Spotlight, we open with a brisk roundup of major stories from the world of sport and policy. We look at new developments following the UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, including the first tangible policy response. We also revisit the resolution of the tragic ice hockey case involving manslaughter charges, and World Athletics’ announcement of its “Ultimate Championship” event—an innovative idea, but not without flaws. Gareth raises some pointed criticisms about the competition format and the puzzling exclusion of key athletics disciplines.

Next, we talk talent. The NFL Draft always offers a window into the world’s most elaborate selection process—but also its inefficiencies. We reflect on how early selection often produces more busts than brilliance, yet remains largely unchanged due to structural inertia. A 14-year-old’s blistering 35-ball century in the IPL leads us to discuss a surprising link between cricket scoring and endurance pacing, and how this informs the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method.

From there, we shift to the core topic of the episode: scientific integrity. Gareth reflects on our recent Spotlight's deep dive into how scientific papers are made, and our most recent feature podcast on the Boston Marathon and Mike's experiences testing Puma's new shoe. The conversation expands into questions of independence in scientific research and evidence, with specific reference to Puma’s bold claim that their new shoe is “the fastest ever", and why that statement is, at best, premature. But we also give credit where it’s due, praising the transparency and almost certain publication of the results of the brand’s testing, as well as the researcher's realism about trust in their lab's research.

And amid it all, Ross shares some personal news—stepping away from his School Academy High Performance and development role, while reflecting on missed opportunities and unrealized HP philosophies.

Links

• The Scottish FA acts to protect women's football
• And the English FA are, apparently, considering it
• The case against ice hockey player Matt Petgrave is dropped
• An analysis of draft picks that shows how high the proportion of "busts" is
• Here's a preprint of the Hoogkamer evaluation of the Puma supershoe - this is not peer-reviewed yet, but I strongly suspect that a peer reviewed version of this is on the horizon
• The best community discussion you'll read on Supershoes, courtesy our Discourse members (Members only access - you know what to do!)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.