Some of the articles say that the blind athletes are not on board with the goggles. I think the goggles are the best solution right now, but I don't really care as long as the number of world titles for the B/VI group stays at 1.

Have you ever that he may be doing it for reasons beyond his own? He is the fastest blind athlete in our sport. some would say a role model. He is interested in making this sport accessible to more people. They aren't listening. If you notice, the amounts sued for are negligible. He wants the rule changed and not monetary gain.

If we are arguing the rule there are many different options to level the playing field that are far more fair and safe. Time bonuses are the easiest. Different amount of vision equals a different time penalty.

If you are arguing whether to sue or not, that is altogether different. He obviously feels strongly enough that his rights have been violated to do so. It is his right to sue if he wants. Isn't that the basis for your whole legal system? people have sued over less damage for more money. If this pisses you off so much you should contact him to express your opinion. I know he would love to talk about it.

I appreciate the problem with having a limited number of participants at most events. I'm sure that a number of people on ST have won their age group by virtue of a shallow field (25-29 and 30-34 have hardly any competitors in my local races). At those events ITU/the RD could choose to combine the categories (making it less fair, in a way), or to enforce the same level of blindness on all competitors (not as fair as it might seem). They've chosen the latter. While I think it's a viable solution, I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. However, the choice at the moment is to race under those rules or not.

The point that a lot of people have been making though is that many partially sighted and blind athletes aren't "people of like abilities". Being legally blind (20/200) is a very long way from actually being blind. While the goggles are *a* solution I still don't think they're the *best* solution. They don't create a level playing field - just the illusion of one, as partially sighted people are simply not as comfortable in total blackout as the fully blind.

Maybe the solution is to get more partially sighted athletes into triathlon? :-)

The point that a lot of people have been making though is that many partially sighted and blind athletes aren't "people of like abilities". Being legally blind (20/200) is a very long way from actually being blind. While the goggles are *a* solution I still don't think they're the *best* solution. They don't create a level playing field - just the illusion of one, as partially sighted people are simply not as comfortable in total blackout as the fully blind.

Maybe the solution is to get more partially sighted athletes into triathlon? :-)

When it comes to internationally competitive paratriathlon people with classifiable vision loss ARE people with like abilities. That's just the nature of the Paralympic beast.

drsteve wrote:

No, they're just categorized as such. Ask anyone who actually has partial vision... being completely blind is completely different.

The point I was making is just that either way there's no level playing field. Saying anyone with visual impairment is an "athlete of like ability" doesn't make it so. Simply giving people "the same level of blindness" using goggles isn't equalizing things either.
What's my solution? If I was actually drawing up plans here then you can be damn sure that I'd think about it for longer than it takes to write a post here.

Given that there are so many people with severe visual impairment, why is there not a deeper field at the "pointy end" of the sport? The rules don't present a hurdle to entry to the sport (unless RDs compel any VI athletes to wear black-out glasses), but being B/VI does. If there was a deeper field, as there is in some other para-sports, then no-one would even be debating the solution and there would be subdivisions of B/VI athletes based on the level of visual impairment.

Is the genetics comment a real comment? ... cuz it kind of seems like hate speech. Maybe that's just me.

Is the genetics comment a real comment? ... cuz it kind of seems like hate speech. Maybe that's just me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/25/sport/us-athlete-blind-lawsuit/index.html

Thoughts?

Nope. Being visually impaired to the point of needing a tandem pilot and therefore being classifiable does make them close enough to be of like ability.

And that is a problem in paralympic sport, no classification system is perfect and they have to shoot for close enough. They've done a pretty good job by now of getting close enough in most of the developed sports. Also, great. You are arguing without having an idea of what you are advocating.