Dathan Ritzenhein » Dathan Ritzenhein interview after breaking 5k American Record at 2009 Zurich Golden League

Ritz will win world half next week.

NIKE-CROSOFT--"WE BUILD RUNNERS, ONE COMPUTER AT A TIME"--Phil Gates

..I think many of you are over estimating the effect the altitude tents had on his training...

Dr. Jeffrey Brown in Houston, TX is a miracle worker. Just ask all of Salazar's athletes. Without his magical diagnosis' and prescription meds and inhalers, where would USA distance running be today.

The effects of "Live High, Train Low" (LHTL) using Altitude Simulators are REAL...Ritz's 12:56 5k blatantly prove that point. This will cause more Elite Runners to use Altitude Simulators to LHTL because of Ritz's dramatic improvement (his previous Personal Best was 13:16)

Thay aren't doing all of this because of pup tents. They are that close all the time because they are really good and damn near identical as the end result of their training.

Here in California back in about 1996-2000 Ryan Hall was living high (Big Bear High School is 6900') and running low. All of the meets were down below the smog level! So for pretty much all of his running before Stanford he had little choice. Brother Chad Hall same story. Now at UC Riverside he walks out on the track, looks up, and there's home way up there near the snow line.
Ritz spent his time at Colorado, about 5300', and much like Jenny Barringer, has cashed in on the bennies of thin air living. Not everyone can afford to move to the Sierra Nevada ski areas in the off-season. But if you can, why not? I don't think the little wanna-be altitude set-ups are going to catch on. (Kind of like swamp land in Florida).
But going back to Ritz and Ryan's junior year NCAA Championships at Waterloo, Iowa, they ran the whole race in each other's gun sights, and for the last few K's you could have tied them together with a bungi cord. Hall was pure low-level Stanford training and Ritz was pure Boulder training, and they finished 1.3 seconds apart. Stanford had all seven runners in by 13th place, 1st place team, and Ritz was the overall winner. That pairing dates back to their high school Foot Locker race at Orlando, and is still going on, 9th-10th at the Olympics marathon. Thay aren't doing all of this because of pup tents. They are that close all the time because they are really good and damn near identical as the end result of their training.
PS - That NCAA Championship also featured Miss Flanagan as the women's champion, and the future Mrs. Hall, Sara Bei, in 3rd with a 1st Place Team finish for Stanford.

The guys over at sportscientists.com have already put this subject through its paces, and said just about everything there is to say about it. Although it may not be the most enjoyable way, I think you had better get used to seeing technology dramatically change sporting performaces. It happens in the majority of other sports (cycling is a good example of a sport dependant on tech) and it´s only a matter of time till running catches up on the technology front. Like someone already said, at the moment its running behind the times(pardon the pun)!

This is good debate for sure because the line seems murky, but it really isn't that murky. Sports ethics is about following rules, just like ethical behavior is about following the law. We can debate equally as heatedly about whether driving faster than the speed limit is ethical.

East Africans at the sub-World Class level may not be able to afford LHTL rooms. Likewise, I am not advocating the use of such technology for just anybody. There is a level of practical use of resources to the level in question. I coached high school distance runners and never even used heartrate monitors because their level of developmental needs was so basic. Further, I think the last thing this country needs is high school runners feeling they NEED an altitude room to win state. Most of the runners at this level still need so much more basic development first. This is world-class technology, and my point is that if Ritz is going to beat East Africans, then he needs to be a pro! Ditto with anyone else who wants to win internationally. Whether high school running zealots will go so far as to buy altitude rooms for $19K, remains to be seen, but that would admittedly be a bummer. That's putting too much value on a state championship--something I think undermines the development of our most talented in this country kids as it is. People want a short cut to winning at too low a level. But the point is, if you're a pro, be a pro. And world class East Africans most definitely CAN afford the technology and I guarantee you Bekele can, along with every single runner Ritz passed in the last 1200 m in Zurich. I think if someone wanted to research the prize money earnings and win schedules in the shoe contracts of these East Africans, you'd be surprised how poor they are not.
The NCAA skiing championships are held every other year at very high altitude--in fact illegally-high altitude by the rules of the Federation Internationale de Ski. If I coach a team from low altitude, and every other year, my NCAA qualifiers--who are pretty heavily invested in their training and performance--have to race at 7000+ feet, that's problematic in fairness, not to mention expense--which is the topic here on LHTL. If I can buy a used altitude room set up for say, $2000, and spend another $1000 to retrofit a room, and ALLOW (nor force) my likely NCAA qualifiers to sleep there the month before the NCAA Championships in Steamboat Springs, is that unfair technology and over-the-top expense? Consider that sans altitude room I will need to spend easily $3000-$4000 at a minimum, for 10 days in a condo in Steamboat Springs for my athletes to have a remote chance of a fair fight. I did that in Bozeman two years ago. THAT'S EXPENSIVE! That's $3000-$4000 EVERY OTHER YEAR, compared to a one-time investment of $3000. I can tell you what my Athletic Director thinks. This is just an example of how NOT cut-and-dry this argument is.
I think I gave a pretty reasonable explanation why the line is at altitude simulated rooms. It's the same reason the rules stop there too. A simple question then is, if it's not at the altitude room, where is it? And if it's somewhere closer to "less technology," how do you enforce the rules if you move the rules that direction? The other direction is clearly not a direction we want to go. The current rules are very simple: If your body creates the adaptation on its own, it is fair and legal. To me, that's a pretty reasonable place, and to move it anywhere else is problematic in so many ways. To think that the rule stops there because nobody outside of the blogosphere has given it much thought is hugely naive. This stuff has been legal eagled 'til you see fuzzy--which is probably why the line seems as such. But I think the line is visible. In fact, I think it's very visible. That doesn't mean I don't understand that people thinks it's ethically fuzzy, and why. But turn it over in your head more, like I have for the past decade, and it become clearer and clearer.

I do not think that LHTLT is cheating. I think it is a great idea. I remember as a midshipman at CU in the 70's when Frank Shorter give us a lecture on fast twitch slow twitch which was the latest technology back then. Back then, Frank led the charge in live high train high when he moved to Boulder and brought other serious runners with him. I first heard about LHTLT two years ago at a seminar by PhD who was also a coach of a college nordic ski team. As a grad student, she had consulted with the norwegian ski team when they were first trying it, and I am pretty sure her thesis was on this technology. There are even commercial systems available for sale.
http://www.altitudetraining.com/

Chad has got it right. Training involves doing things to your body to help it overcompensate. ie load it with extreme acidosis so it recovers and over-compensates, deprive it of the proper partial pressure of oxygen, breakdown the muscles so that during rest the body will overcompensate and build stronger ones. We think of better ways to prepare the body to run faster.

Where the line is gray is when you start talking about nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, epo, anabolic steroids, HGH. There is a line there somewhere, but it is sometimes a very murky line.

All sports have seen and delt with new technologies, running rarely sees it because it is such a bare minimum sport that is truely a test of toughness and effort. Ritz and the other runners under Nike do have an advantage, but I'd say its all part of the game.

I think it was Dwight Stones. Colorado takes 'em to the edge, and Salazar keeps bringin' 'em back. When is someone gonna write "RUNNING WITH THE SALAZARS" and give America an insight into what kids really need to be doing for international success?

NBC did such a bad job covering Ritz during the race and especially afterwards when they knew it was an AR. I know Bekele is the best distance runner in history, but Ritz ran the race of his life and got one of the most treasured records for American distance runners. FloTrack needs to start covering these races instead of those chumps at NBC. Also, now that Kennedy does not have the record I will be expecting Nike to come out with the Zoom Ritz.

I agree with your point that Live High, Train Low technology is not "new" nor is it Blatant Blood Doping, however, it is VERY EXPENSIVE, which limits its use to those with Wealthy Corporate Sponsors like the Nike Altitude Project Members or those with Wealthy Government Sponsors like the Norwegeian Ski team.

Use of this Technology is UNFAIR to those who don't have access to it, like many of the East Africans, so its use will eventually tilt the playing field heavily in favor or those privileged enough to use it. (you did say the Nordic Ski team cleaned up the Olympic Medals after using Live High, Train Low Technology)
This begs the question of how much Technology is TOO Much Technology in Sports ? Think of the controversial "Hi-Tech Swim Suits" from the 2008 Olympics, or Overly "Springy" Drivers in Golf. It threatens to turn Sports into a competition of "Who has the Better Technology" rather than who is the Better Athlete. Whats to Stop Nike from introducing "Semi-Anti-Gravity Shoes" like the "Air Zero-Grav" (i made that up) so their runners can compete at a Fraction of their Body Weight ?
Balancing Technology and Sports Performance is a difficult task because everyone wants to win, but Sports should be about Athletic Ability not an athletes use of Advanced Technology to Artificially Improve their Athletic Ability.