La Sportiva Lavaredo by UTMB - 120K - Race Analysis

Full Race Analysis

Race Overview

La Sportiva Lavaredo 2026 120K once again confirmed its status as one of the defining mountain ultras of the European season. The race covered 120 km with approximately 5,800 m of elevation gain, starting at 23:00 in Cortina d’Ampezzo and taking runners through the major mountain landmarks of the Dolomites, including the Tre Cime area and the high passes before the final descent back toward Cortina.

The men's race was dominated by Hannes Namberger, who returned to Lavaredo after missing the 2025 edition and immediately reclaimed the course record. His 11:45:31 was 3:45 faster than Ben Dhiman's previous record from 2025. Andreas Reiterer and Tobias Geiser ran together for much of the race and eventually crossed the finish line in an identical 11:55:26, producing a rare joint second place.

The women's race produced an equally historic result. Sunmaya Budha won in 13:33:18, setting a new women's course record and finishing 10th overall. Lucy Bartholomew was only 1:41 behind in second, while Emma Stuart completed the podium. The final outcome was particularly dramatic because Budha made her decisive move very late, overtaking Bartholomew on the final descent into Cortina.

From a Vertical Trail Labs perspective, however, the results become even more interesting. The top of both races was characterized by extremely high climbing power combined with strong descending efficiency. The VTL data shows that the difference between the podium and the rest of the field was not simply speed: it was the ability to repeatedly produce high-quality climbing and descending performances while preserving endurance over more than 12 hours. The underlying dataset contains checkpoint-level VPI and DMI measurements for the complete Top 10 fields.

Men's Race Analysis

Namberger: elite climbing power with almost no weakness

Hannes Namberger (Bib 1) delivered perhaps the clearest example in the field of what a complete Lavaredo profile looks like. His overall VPI reached 1006 m/h, while his DMI was 14.91 km/h, giving him an ER of 87.3. His effort pace moved from 3.63 min/effort-km in the first half to 4.09 in the second — a relatively controlled deterioration considering the amount of climbing accumulated. These numbers explain why Namberger was able to convert his physical superiority into a new course record rather than merely winning the race. His result was not based on one spectacular section; it was the product of maintaining elite efficiency across the entire course. The checkpoint dataset confirms that the leading men's group repeatedly produced VPI values above 1,000 m/h on the early and decisive climbs.

The most interesting aspect of the opening battle was how closely Andreas Reiterer (Bib 2) and Tobias Geiser (Bib 5) matched Namberger. Both recorded VPI values of approximately 1006 m/h, with Reiterer at 1006.6 and Geiser at 1005.8. Their DMI values were also identical at 14.42–14.43 km/h, while both finished with an ER of 84.6. Their near-identical performance profiles are reflected perfectly in the official result: both crossed the line in 11:55:26, only 9:55 behind Namberger. This was not simply a coincidence of finishing time; the VTL data shows that these three athletes operated at an almost identical performance level for much of the race.

Behind the leading trio, Peter Fraňo (Bib 3) produced a strong all-round performance with a VPI of 947.1, DMI of 13.74 km/h and ER of 78.5. Andreas Rieder (Bib 11) was remarkably close, with 940.9 VPI, 13.51 DMI and 79.5 ER. The important point is that the gap between the leaders and this second group was relatively small in the individual metrics, yet it became significant over 120 km. A difference of roughly 60 vertical metres per hour on repeated climbs may look modest in isolation, but across thousands of metres of elevation it progressively compounds into minutes. This is exactly the type of cumulative separation the VTL indices are designed to expose.

The next group also illustrates how the race progressively stretched the field. Ethan Peters (Bib 13) recorded 916.8 VPI, 13.14 DMI and 77.1 ER, while Clément Mugnier (Bib 33) and Fabien Feutrier (Bib 29) were remarkably similar at 904.1 / 13.02 / 77.9 and 894.9 / 13.03 / 78.7, respectively. Their ER values are particularly interesting because they remained relatively strong despite their lower absolute climbing power. In other words, these athletes were not necessarily losing because they were poor endurance performers; they were simply operating at a slightly lower ceiling of climbing power and descending speed than the podium group.

Leo Rogaume (Bib 7) finished with 882.7 VPI, 12.82 DMI and 75.6 ER, while Andrea Zanconato (Bib 65) had the lowest VPI of the men's Top 10 at 876.5, but an exceptionally interesting profile: his DMI reached 12.72, while his ER was 84.9. That ER is higher than several runners ahead of him and is one of the strongest endurance values in the entire men's Top 10. It suggests that Zanconato's final position was not a consequence of a major collapse. Instead, he lacked the absolute climbing output required to remain closer to the leaders, despite preserving his performance very well over the second half.

The race therefore tells a very clear VTL story. Namberger won because he combined elite VPI, elite DMI and very strong endurance resistance. Reiterer and Geiser were almost identical in physical profile, which ultimately produced the rare dead heat for second. Further down the classification, the difference between athletes increasingly came from the interaction between power and durability rather than from one metric alone. This also matches the broader race narrative: Namberger's attack eventually separated him from the two Italians, while reports from the race described a three-man battle at the front before Namberger progressively created the decisive gap. After Col Gallina around km 97.5, Namberger reportedly went through a major physical low but managed to maintain his lead and protect the record.

Women's Race Analysis

Budha and Bartholomew: two exceptional profiles, one minute and 41 seconds

The women's race was arguably even more fascinating from a VTL perspective. Sunmaya Budha (Bib 4) won in 13:33:18, finished 10th overall, and established a new women's course record. Her VTL profile shows 872.7 VPI, 12.91 DMI and an exceptional 85.6 ER. Her effort pace moved from 4.15 to 4.74 min/effort-km, showing a relatively controlled deterioration despite the enormous accumulated workload. The combination is important: Budha did not simply win because she climbed faster than the other women. She combined high climbing output with strong descending and one of the best endurance profiles in the women's Top 10.

Lucy Bartholomew (Bib 6) came extraordinarily close. Her VPI of 874.8 m/h was actually slightly higher than Budha's, while her DMI was 12.71 km/h and ER 81.6. The numbers reveal an extremely balanced duel. Bartholomew had marginally more climbing power, but Budha had the stronger overall endurance rating and ultimately won by only 1:41. This makes the final descent particularly significant: reports indicate that Budha made her decisive move there, turning a race that had been extremely close for hours into a victory and course record.

The third-place battle shows another level of separation. Emma Stuart (Bib 17) finished with 803.0 VPI, 11.70 DMI and 80.6 ER, while Manon Gras (Bib 174) recorded 787.1 VPI, 11.36 DMI and 84.6 ER. Gras's ER is particularly notable: despite having significantly less climbing power than Budha and Bartholomew, her endurance rating was almost identical to Reiterer and Geiser on the men's side. This suggests that her fourth-place finish was supported by excellent fatigue management rather than exceptional raw power.

Eszter Csillag (Bib 46) produced another strong balanced performance, with 778.9 VPI, 11.35 DMI and 76.2 ER. Susanne Zahlauer (Bib 24) followed with 734.2 VPI, 10.52 DMI and 77.1 ER. Their profiles show a gradual reduction in absolute performance as the classification moves down, but also demonstrate that endurance alone cannot compensate indefinitely for lower climbing and descending speed. At this level, the athletes still need a sufficiently high performance ceiling to remain close to the leaders over 120 km.

The lower half of the women's Top 10 becomes particularly interesting from an endurance perspective. Sarah Napiwotzki (Bib 203) recorded 728.4 VPI, 10.30 DMI and 73.7 ER, while Cristina Filippini (Bib 331) was almost identical at 721.6 / 10.34 / 73.4. Anna Louden (Bib 12) had 717.8 VPI, 10.34 DMI and 67.5 ER, while Vaida Nakrosiute (Bib 376) recorded 689.6 VPI, 10.51 DMI and 80.3 ER. Nakrosiute is therefore another clear example of an athlete whose final position cannot be explained by raw climbing power alone: her VPI was the lowest in the group, but her ER was one of the strongest.

What makes Budha and Bartholomew victory especially significant is the overall context. They were not merely the fastest woman; they finished ahead of almost the entire men's field. Their performance therefore provides a powerful benchmark for the VTL engine: athletes with a women's-field-leading combination of VPI, DMI and ER can become competitive deep into the overall classification, even against a world-class men's field.

Vertical Trail Labs Insights

One of the strongest findings is the closeness of the men's podium. Namberger: 1006 / 14.91 / 87.3. Reiterer: 1006.6 / 14.42 / 84.6. Geiser: 1005.8 / 14.43 / 84.6. The three profiles are remarkably similar. Namberger's advantage is therefore not enormous in raw climbing power; his biggest separation comes from the combination of slightly better descending efficiency and stronger endurance. Over 120 km, that combination was enough to turn a three-way battle into a new course record.

The women's data reveals the same principle from another angle. Budha and Bartholomew were separated by just 1:41, and their VPI values were almost identical. Budha's advantage came primarily through her stronger ER of 85.6 versus 81.6, together with slightly superior DMI. This is exactly the kind of distinction that a traditional race result cannot reveal. Both athletes were extraordinarily fast; the decisive difference was how efficiently they converted that ability into a performance lasting more than thirteen hours.

Another important VTL observation is the role of ER in identifying hidden performances. Andrea Zanconato's 84.9 ER and Vaida Nakrosiute's 80.3 ER stand out because both athletes finished outside the leading positions despite possessing endurance profiles comparable to much higher-ranked competitors. Their results suggest that endurance resistance can preserve performance, but cannot completely compensate for a lower absolute VPI/DMI ceiling. This is a useful distinction: ER protects performance; VPI and DMI establish the performance ceiling.

The checkpoint data also reinforces the importance of the course's repeated combination of climbing and descending. Early segments show the leading men operating around or above 1,000 m/h VPI, while later segments progressively reduce the numbers as fatigue accumulates. The best athletes are therefore not simply those producing the highest number once; they are the athletes capable of returning to high-quality movement again and again after every descent, aid station and accumulated climb.

Finally, Lavaredo shows why overall ranking and raw metrics should always be read together. Namberger's course record, Reiterer and Geiser's dead heat, Budha's overall Top 10 and Bartholomew's 1:41 deficit all become more understandable when viewed through the VTL framework. The race was ultimately won by athletes who could repeatedly express high climbing power, maintain technical descending speed and limit the degradation of those qualities over the final hours.