Ask Martin, Volume 2

Training has been going poorly this week, so instead of talking about that I’ll answer a few more questions I’ve received this month.

Question: What are some of the more important things that need to be done at the beginning of the throw in order to stay on balance during the throw?

The start of the throw is the most important part and I could talk about it for a long time. Instead, I’ll just focus my comments on one big issue that I’ve been working on: when to pick up the right foot on the first turn. This is also a pretty common problem among hammer throwers and one that has generated a lot of discussion throughout the years.

Normally, people fall into two camps in this debate. On one side there are those that emulate world record holder Yuri Sedych and try to lift the right foot off early. Biomechanist Ralph Otto showed us that on Sedych’s world record throw his right foot left the round on average at 63º (where 0º is the back of the circle and 90º is the left side of the circle). On the other side are those that follow Stuart Togher’s mantra “push to 180º.” My coach takes the middle road: he says that you shouldn’t try to pick the foot up early or late. Instead, the foot will come off the ground on its own when the body is balanced and you push the ball properly to the left side.

My problem is that I am too active with my right foot at the start of my throw and, as a result, lift it off the ground prematurely. Lifting off early prevents me from getting my weight transfered to the left side. Even though I may pick my foot up early, the balance problem makes me land later and reduce my radius. To fix this, Bondarchuk is constantly telling me to just focus on pushing the hammer with the upper body and to let the feet turn themselves. In fact, he often tells me to pretend I “don’t have legs” so that I will focus only on pushing the hammer. When I am active with my feet, I pick up my right foot early, but when I am patient and focus on pushing, the foot comes off the ground on its own and at the right time. (On a side note, picking up the foot too late also has its own set of problems).

Hammer throw footwork is quite complex, but we’ve all done thousands of throws. For an elite thrower, Bondarchuk seems to think the footwork is frequently something that messes up your throw rather than something that gives you that extra meter. So, my advice is to be patient with the lower body since that will allow you to have the balance so you can push and accelerate the hammer with the upper body.

Question: What are your thoughts on the recent Jessica Cosby arbitration decision?

Jessica Cosby was banned for the offseason after testing positive for a diuretic (photo by UCLABruins.com)

For those of you not familiar with the case, Jessica Cosby was the U.S. champion in the hammer throw last year and placed seventh at the World Championships, the highest ever finish by an American woman. Less than a week after the world championships, Cosby tested positive for a diuretic (which is classified as a masking agent). She appealed her two-year ban in arbitration and was able to reduce the suspension to four months.

Arbitration is basically a private court, where matters are decided by a private panel of judges that often aren’t experts in sports law. The panel is allowed to reduce the penalty for a positive test where the athlete can show that they did not use the substance to enhance their performance (or mask another doping method). The panel found that this was the case and reduced her ban to four months. They found that, due to depression, she was “not in full control of her decision making abilities.” This is important since they also noted that if she were in full control, they would not have reduced the ban. Combined with the fact that the test happened after the season was over, they felt that she demonstrated she was not using the drug as a masking agent.

I have two main problems with this case, and neither has to do with Jessica. I don’t know her and have to take her at her word. My issues have to do with the arbitration panel. The panel itself seems to know little about athletics. By putting our important decisions in the hands of panels such as this, we risk more bad precedent like this case created. First off, the panel decided that the diuretic could not have been taken for performance enhancing reasons since she took it in the off season. Even if her season was over (many other athletes were still competing until the end of September) she tested positive less than a week after the world championships. The panel seemed to assume that no one would ever take drugs in the offseason or that no drugs could remain in the system for a few days after the season ended. A panel that knew the sport would have asked those difficult questions. It is most likely that Jessica was not taking the diuretic for performance enhancing reasons, but the panel should take a more critical look at the facts.

Second, Jessica’s attorneys asked the panel to reduce her suspension to three months. The panel thought that was too little and wanted to give her a more severe punishment: four months. Again, they do not understand the sport. The panel imposed a suspension from September 21, 2009 to January 21, 2010, but the earliest she has ever begun her season was January 31, and she hasn’t competed indoors since 2006. Her suspension, in effect, was not a suspension at all since she was banned from competing during the offseason. She missed no competitions, lost out on no prize money, and is able to start off this year as normal. If the panel had understood our sport and wanted to give her a meaningful punishment (like they said they wanted), they would have made her suspension continue at least until the start of this season. It was within the panel’s discretion to reduce the ban, but they should have at least understood our sport before making their decision.

On a side note, those of you that know me know that I think there needs to be major reform to the doping policies. Athletes are unable to get treatment for many common medical conditions since it might cause a positive test. Furthermore, WADA doesn’t have a coherent policy and substances seemed to be banned ad hoc. That being said, the rules are the rules just like the law is the law. thinking a rule isn’t fair doesn’t allow someone to break is just like not liking a speed limit doesn’t give you the right to speed (although at least with laws we can elect the people who make them). Until the rules are changed, athletes need to be very careful with what they let into their body.