Essentially the protocol that has been very successful for the US is to basically give collegiate runners 3 weeks to "train up" for a specific swim test (regardless of said athlete's swim background; obviously that runner who swam trained from age 8-13 is going to be in much better shape than the runner who's never swim trained but is so good at running, a federation wants you to give triathlon a chance). How they do on said swim test basically determines the level of interest they have in said athlete. ETA: The swim test is basically 3 sets of X x 100's where the send off drops 5s every round. IE 8 x 100 on 1:30 / 8 x 100 on 1:25 / 8 x 100 on 1:20 or 1:40 / 1:35 / 1:30....They can use that data to pretty much predict your ability and forecast the amount of "investment" you'll need to do.

Again I think the biggest point in many of these discussions- the motivation/ability to keep showing up every single day and "grind". That may be "wanting it more" it may be availability to train up (many developing pro's simply can't afford to keep living the pro lifestyle when there is zero money coming into the equation; and thus quit to go get a "real job"), whatever it is; it's a big factor imo.

Early in LS's career the swim demands on him were not as critical as they are now. So he never had to go "all in" on the swim like a guy like McElroy did even though LS clearly looked into improving it from early on in his career. But that "line in the sand" wasn't really ever there in his early part of his career imo; that it's becoming more critical now.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II