One thing that I have noticed in the results of IM races is that the female pro results trail off faster than the men's, with fewer "contenders" at a given race.
The gap between the top flight and second tier pros appears to be larger than in the men's category.

For this reason I think that increasing the number of Kona slots for women might actually lower participation in WTC races from top level pros by virtue of them only having to race once or twice to secure a place at Kona. This would free up more of their season to focus on non WTC races that interest them or have a good purse.
I'm all for equality, and personally would like to see more pro slots in both categories at Kona, but I'm not sure that adding more female slots would alter the race outcome. All the women who can win money there are already qualifying.

A better step forward would be to pay prize money deeper in to the field at WTC races, this is what would encourage more pros to race.
As it stands many pros put all their eggs in very few baskets, I believe that this is because it's the only way some of them will win any cash at all. Paying the field deeper would encourage pros to take more chances and would increase the incentive for more people to commit to the pro lifestyle.

Edit: But as you said, the bottom line for WTC appears to be exactly that - the financial bottom line.
Their interest is in getting more and more AGers to pay £400 to line up at one of their races, they would get rid of the pro system entirely if they felt that doing so wouldn't harm AGer participation

If you have say 50 of each gender rather than 35, the top guys will still have enough points to go race at challenge race. The people from 20-35 have to keep racing WTC to be assured enough points. Now if you extend it to 50, then those in 20-35 are "safer" but the people from 35-70 need to race a lot more WTC to squeeze into the top 50. So really expanding to 50 for the pro women would just make another layer of pro women race WTC races more frequently with the hope of going to Kona whereas the middle group might get a reprieve, as the top girls do now.

Personally as I said on the front page, I think it is totally absurd that the women don't have the same number of slots as men. If it is a world championship grant them equal opportunity. It send the wrong message to the rest of the world and certainly to teenage athletes who look up to the pro women and then they get the message, "your idols really aren't good enough to deserve the same number of slots as men. The men pros are somehow better and deserving of more opportunity to get to Kona". That's really sad in this day and age. See my numerous posts on the two front page articles. I feel strongly on this topic having had the chance to coach teenage athletes, and also having gone to school at Royal Military College of Canada in the 80's where we started the triathlon program in 1986. We introduced a lot of women to the sport and one of our peers made it to the Sydney Olympics too. I think as male leaders we can do a lot to provide opportunities for all. Look who is running WTC? Not that many women in the top exec positions like any company. They can do better on this topic.

Look who posted on the front page on the two articles on this topic? Not a single woman has posted as of 8:50 AM EST on 17 Feb. Don't you guys think that is telling? Guys make the rules for women and guys influence what they get to do, because even though women may want more they don't want to step into the middle of the fight between the different camps.

One of the big opportunities for triathlon remains women's participation. Look at marathons and running races. The tide has shifted from the 70's and we now have many races with more women than men. This is the market we can draw from....they got their marathon done and now want to try a sprint tri....then an olympic....and so on.

Equal number of pro women sends the right signal to the world, and paring down the men's field to make that happen makes a lot of men feel penalized to give the women parity. That again creates the wrong environment for peer acceptance.

I can't lay claims to this idea (credit goes to Halvard), but think about this:

Say they decide to reduce slots to an equal 30/30. This opens up 25 slots on the pier for AGers. WTC then decides that these will be "normal" AG slots. This represents roughly $21K worth of additional entry fees for the WC.

But wait! With those 25 new slots, they could then open up a new IM in North America or other strategic market that has a high likelihood of selling out. For the sake of the example, let's say that this is in the US.

2800 slots x $750 = new $2,100,000 in revenue.

I doubt that it would result in more prize money being paid out across the 70.3/140.6 series, so that'd probably head straight into the profit coffers.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Playing devils advocate here...

If you make the number of pro slots the same will you not then have backlash because you do not give amateur KQ slots out in the same 50:50 fashion?

I understand that there is more participation in the men's side for both pros and amateurs but making it "easier" for a female pro to qualify in relation to the number of female pros compared to a female amateur to qualify in relation to the number of female amateurs seems also unfair?

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Great point!

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am one of the signatories of the Women For Tri open letter.

In my opinion, you're equating two different things to one another. The number of slots available to FPRO's is finite and defined at 35 slots at this point. Meanwhile, if more women participate in the AG ranks, the number of slots available at a given race grows to accommodate as a percentage of the field.

I understand the proportionality argument. However, in my opinion, it gives the impression that women are somehow less valuable to the sport as fewer female professionals are allowed to compete at the World Championships. Even if this is unintentional, it sends the message that WTC does not value the female athlete as much as the male athlete.

As we say in training, there are two ways to build something: by pushing it up from the bottom, and pulling it up from the top. There needs to be equality at the professional level as well as looking for organic, grassroots methods of making triathlon more accessible to female participants.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

If the number of slots allocated becomes equivalent (assuming the unequal distribution of those vying for those slots continues), one of the following must be true:
1) The AG method of distribution is unfair
2) The pro distribution is unfair.

I don't hear too many complaints about the way the AG slots are handed out other than people would like for there to be more overall, but the idea of doling them out proportionally seems to be a generally accepted practice. So, why not give 80 slots (pick a number here) to the pros and divide them up. if there are 500 pro women and 500 pro men, then the slots are split 50/50. If it's 700 men and 300 women, then they're split 70/30. But to give an equivalent number of slots when the number of contestants fighting for those slots is significantly different has never made any sense to me.

In my mind equality isn't about having equal numbers, it's about having equivalent representation. If 90% of the pros are women, then 90% of the WC slots should go to women and vice versa. After all should California and Rhode Island have the same number of electoral college votes? If not, why not? Is it unfair that they don't? Isn't that showing inequality to Rhode Island? Is Rhode Island valued any less or made to feel inferior to California due to this? No, but if all states were given "equality" and all had the same value in the election, I think there would be a great deal of inequality as the votes of those in the more populous states have just become devalued.

---

____________________________________________________

http://triathletelife.wordpress.com/

If you look at overall slots on the pier in Kona that number is finite as well and that overall figure (in relation to amateurs) is split by participation level but then the finite number of pro slots on the pier is split by some different method.

I think you can compare the two and at the moment it is similarly distributed (assuming that IM participation is 3/8ths female) but if you change to 50:50 it would not be...

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

You're using the wrong governmental analogy. The great compromise is known as Congress: House of Representatives based on population, Senate is equal distribution to all states.

There isn't a true compromise available here. And equivalent representation merely reinforces the lack of females currently choosing to race long course. In my opinion, that requires both equal slots at the pinnacle of the sport for men and women, and an effort to make tri more accessible to not just women, but all athletes. We need to get out of the habit on telling people they need a wetsuit, or a $5000 bike, or the new 920, etc. to race. But generally, those barriers are higher for women (see, e.g., the running store staffed exclusively by males and the intimidation factor associated with it.) I digress.

Honestly, I'd like to see WTC move to a time standard for KQ-eligibility, then determine entrants based on the fastest X% of the field. Then have equality for pro's. But in the absence of that, I ask for equal spots at the top.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

First off - Life is not fair.

Every-person makes their decisions based on the facts at hand. No one is forcing people to race at WTC events. If they were being forced to then there is a very valid argument that the allocation should be based on something that is not or does not appear to be arbitrary.

If the FPRO (and MPRO) don't like what WTC is doing, they could have supported REV3 better when they had great pay-outs or support Challenge/Rev3 now and not race WTC.

A % marker would be best in my opinion.

At any given race the AG winners time (or some historical AG winners average time) + x% should be used.

You would then get only the competitive entrants to Kona, fewer KQ's at older age groups just because they showed up to race and a fairer way to get the best of the best at Kona.

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Often, sponsors will only pay bonus for WTC races and Kona, unless the athlete is very good at negotiating with their sponsors for events not under the IM branding. Which is a whole other can of worms...

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Agreed. Life isn't fair. However, if we were totally accepting of that fact, then there would be nothing to discuss here. Perhaps that's your point, but I'm not sure.

But, life is also about overcoming those barriers. We can try to work to improve the system or we can leave it broken. I don't believe it's necessarily perfect as is, but I do believe that making it arbitrarily 50:50 regardless of field size is just as problematic as the current system as it doesn't entice men to enter b/c they are just entering an already overpopulated field and their chance of going to Kona is even less than it is now. So, we've traded the problem from women (according to the arguments presented above) to men.

---

____________________________________________________

http://triathletelife.wordpress.com/

I realize by typing this I am opening myself to be a huge target....but...

As an A.G. female athlete, I have never looked at the pro ranks, proportions at Kona, how fast the times trail off, etc to drive my participation in an event or sport. Perhaps this is unusual, but I am not so sure. It seems to me, the events that are driving women (in large numbers) to triathlon are events like the Danskin tri's. Supportive, fun environments that most on this forum would not even consider a 'real' race (swim angels anyone?). I am sure that Kona and WTC (as well as Challenge), do drive a segment of female athletes to the sport, but in my work and the women I speak with they are not looking to do iron-distance races, they want to feel like a triathlete and they don't want to be put down by other women (which actually happens a lot at big name/brand races).

Pro-Women do deserve equal representation. I don't feel I have the ability to speak as to what that looks like for them, I am not in the ranks, will never be in the ranks and don't desire to attempt to make a living that way. I do wonder if there is a fallacy of argument however that the unequal distribution at the top means that women (in general) are getting the message that we are less valuable. Down here is the A.G. ranks, we do have proportional spots, we have 'fans' that think we are pretty cool just for toeing the line, and as a general rule, I wonder how many woman can name more than 5 or at most 10 female iron distance pros. I am not sure these are the things we keep up on, does that mean we don't care? Not necessarily, but at the end of the day, sports stats are not all that interesting to some women. They want to be celebrated for running 3 miles without walking.

One final thought before I get flamed - with all the doping allegations coming out one thing for me that would make me much more interested in following the pro ranks closely would be if women stepped up and said enough is enough. We will race 30 Kona slots, BUT WTC has to create a bio-passport for every athlete. Stand up women and show what clean racing looks like, show the men/AG/sponsors that clean sport is important and if they won't do anything about it, the women will. The cynic in me wonders how many spots could be filled (in either gender) if this were done.

---

________________________________________________
Don't Just Live, Thrive!
Thrive Kinematics Physical Therapy - http://www.facebook.com/...8178667572974?ref=hl

I think your post is pretty well spot on, especially with the line "they are not looking to do iron-distance races, they want to feel like a triathlete."

In re: "sends the message:" that's something I have heard from athletes in my community as to part of the reason why they have selected alternative races.

I think long-course triathlon isn't ever going to experience the same demo mix as what running is seeing right now. But I do think there are ways to tap it, and you've spoken to one of the key issues. I think equal numbers of spots is one small but important piece of that puzzle.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Although Boston has used it for years, the issue with a time standard is that Florida does not have the same topology as Idaho. This gets exaggerated in long-course tri simply because of the duration of the race and would lead to crazy demand at flat'n'fast courses. See the field sizes at the Chicago or London marathons for a taste. Either that or courses get watered down...equalized? leveled?...to 2-5 loops with 1-2 moderate hills per lap.
...although that would be one way to really regionalize the racing, since all the courses would be identical.

It really would be triathlon breaking new ground in women's sports to offer true equality. How best to drive growth is very chicken-and-egg and there aren't a lot of good examples for top-down growth in women's sports...maybe you could look at the US women's national soccer team as a real-world example of a driver of growth in the sport at all levels. Women's tennis?...but they still only play 3 sets and don't have equal pay. The Olympics?...near-equal in medal count, but certainly not in all-nation representation or in equal pay-out (driven by the nations, of course). Running and road races have certainly been mostly bottom-up, although following a very few top performers (I remember Suzy Favor causing a boom in Wisconsin back in the day).

I think it's definitely worth a shot to set them at equal numbers and see what happens over 5-10 years. If WTC can't fill the slots, they lose little since they don't pay down to the numbers under discussion anyway.

What's everyone's opinion of the biggest "over-achievement" by a low seed at Kona has been over the years? Has a 50th seed finished top ten? Has a true 12th seed won? Maybe we can pull some stats into this and pareto an answer...

I believe Ben Hoffman was in the 40s before his 2nd place this year. Snuck in the first round of qualification, then got bumped down in total KPR by the final standings were set.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Sorry, maybe I might not have been clear but when I said use a specific time I meant that the specific time be based on the AG winner of that race.

In Florida you might use 8:40 + 2% for M35:39 whereas at IM UK you might use 9:45 + 2% (replace 8:40/9:45 with AG winner time)

And in reference to your quote about women's tennis, Wimbledon (and other Grand Slams) pay the same to women as they do to men despite the women playing 1 or 2 fewer sets. For me, that is equality done wrongly....

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Sadly, I don't get the push for more pro men or more pro women at Kona with the prize purse allocation messed up. It boils down to how many people more people who are allowed to have roughly zero chance at any kind of a pay check. I think that if they are going to have something like KPR and have x-number of slots available to Kona for the pros, then they need to have a system in which all of the pros have at least a chance at breaking even for the trip. (For example, Wimbledon gives out cash down to, I believe, 128th place and that's more than the 4th place pro at Kona. Not that triathlon will have the pocket of tennis, but it's still an example of handing out cash to up-and-comers.) Until then, it's just a bunch of starving athletes happy to become even more poor. I wonder how many of the pro KQers have received less than $5k in prize money during a qualifying year. So, if more female pro athletes want to work harder to qualify for something and not eat, have at it. I think it's misplaced energy. Flame on.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

The numbers should be equal. The WTC need to stop being dicks and just make the change.


However, unless you have a legitimate shot at placing top 5, going to Kona as a pro is a waste of time and money, male or female. So the number being 35 or 20 or 50 is irrelevant.

With careful race selection and avoiding the KPR trap, you can make a lot more money as a professional athlete.

One thing I will say on this thread that I said on the front page.

Pro women do not represent only the numbers of women racing age group triathlon. They represent women overall from all around the world. Last time I checked the female global population was pretty well 50%. The fact that less women race in triathlon has deep links to society's bias against women even having the opportunity to do sport and that is even in developed societies, forget about developing societies (for example my mother never had the opportunity to learn to ride a bike simply because she was a girl, but legend had it that she cleaned up at every track event as a school girl....but I digress).

WTC needs to show leadership that its marquis event is a shining beacon for women worldwide...not just women triathletes, not just women athletes, but all women. When women worldwide see what Chrissy Wellington or Mirinda Carfrae or back in the day PNF and Erin Baker could do, they can make the leap, "hey, if they can do it, so can we, so can our daughters, our nieces, our grandkids".

Cutting the pro men's field down, only creates some level of animosity among men that they got the short end to make things equal with women. Upping the women's total firstly sets the right message from Ironman globally, while at the same time, not alienating a bunch of men who get screwed over in the name of making things equal for women.

There should be zero link between the number of women racing pro in Kona and age group participation numbers. If we look at the Olympics for triathlon what did they do back in Sydney in 2000. If I recall correctly there was 50 of each. On the biggest stage on the planet our sport, making its debut were able to send the right message to the world. Ironman/Mr. Messick, you are 15 years behind, and I would almost NEVER give Les McDonald more credit than Ironman for ANYTHING, so I have to be entirely objective whenever I give Les credit, because if there is someone who rubbed me the wrong way with his bully tactics wrt to tri, it was Les.

Why do you hate gender equality?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Say they decide to reduce slots to an equal 30/30. This opens up 25 slots on the pier for AGers.//

Ever since there have been about 1600 total athletes at kona, i have been hearing the pier is full. But magically somehow there are now 2100+ bikes on the pier, an increase just about every year they have the race. It is not an either or equation, just look at the history of entries. They will not cut the mens field, that is counter productive to what they are trying to achieve. They will gladly add slots to the womens race, and probably would like to add more to the mens too. Now that there is some serious competition for the LD pros coming into the market, they will need to shore up their pro fields, or they will dwindle and the races will become less relevant. And since the pros have been clueless in all these decisions being made on their behalf, looks like more women will now get to chase worthless points now too, just like the men do. What they have bargained for is equality to make poor decisions as a pro athlete. congratulations.

#StarvingProfessionaTriathletesMatter

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

You are using your values to judge why a pro may want to race Kona. It is not about making money for many of them. Plenty of them have masters degrees and PhD's in a variety of occupations and could make 6 to 7 figures with their drive and intellect. It is the same reason why a minor league player would love to get called up to play on the 40 man roster for the September drive for the MLB playoffs. They just want to play in the big leagues....they may sit on the bench the entire time and may never get called up again, but just for few few games maybe putting on the Yankee pin stripes might be a life goal fulfilled.

But this is supposed to be the World Championships right? If you go to the race and finish over half an hour after the winner has finished, then are you really adding to the field?

You're suggesting that there are pros that want to race Kona just for the experience, but that shouldn't be what racing as a pro is about.

I'm not questioning anyone's motivation to make it to Kona. I'm questioning the compensation for said athletes once they get there.

My stance is that I'm all in favor of handing the pros however many slots they want to have. Hell, let each and every card carrying WTC professional race Kona for all I care (the top 50 get a slot on the pier and the rest park their bikes down the street and let them fight for a chance just to be on the pier). Your MLB analogy is a good one in my favor, since the moment the minor leaguer gets called up, he immediately gets a pay raise just for riding the bench. He made it to the show, here- have some more money just for making it. Pro KQers get the privilege of playing the game without any expectation of compensation. And, we want to add more of those non-compensated athletes? In terms of treating professional athletes like professional athletes (regardless of gender), they (both the athlete and the WTC) need to believe that each and every pro that's earned a spot at Kona provides something of value to their race and should be compensated. This should be true regardless of what the athlete does in their other life.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

[\quote] Pro women do not represent only the numbers of women racing age group triathlon. They represent women overall from all around the world. Last time I checked the female global population was pretty well 50%. The fact that less women race in triathlon has deep links to society's bias against women even having the opportunity to do sport and that is even in developed societies, forget about developing societies (for example my mother never had the opportunity to learn to ride a bike simply because she was a girl, but legend had it that she cleaned up at every track event as a school girl....but I digress).

WTC needs to show leadership that its marquis event is a shining beacon for women worldwide...not just women triathletes, not just women athletes, but all women. When women worldwide see what Chrissy Wellington or Mirinda Carfrae or back in the day PNF and Erin Baker could do, they can make the leap, "hey, if they can do it, so can we, so can our daughters, our nieces, our grandkids".

Cutting the pro men's field down, only creates some level of animosity among men that they got the short end to make things equal with women. Upping the women's total firstly sets the right message from Ironman globally, while at the same time, not alienating a bunch of men who get screwed over in the name of making things equal for women.[/quote]
I guess this is where I disagree and sort of agree. I am not sure that Pro women represent all women in sport...As I woman I am inspired by Carfrae, Wellington, Haskins, the Emma's etc but I am more likely to actually participate because of Sally down the street. Perhaps this n=1 is not representative, but I think driving woman to sport at the lower levels is the first step and unfortunately this may not equal the same initiatives as the need for equality for the female pros. You are right - Men are on fire about this topic, but has anyone looked at the differences in motivating factors for men and women?

I would venture that there are some women who are motivated by the pointy end of the spear, but the deep seeded inequality that you are speaking about does not change because of the 1% - those people are unattainable for most of us and many women are intimidated to the point where they will not participate because they could never dream of running a sub 3 hour marathon alone much less at the end of Kona! Your daughters, sisters, mothers, etc are perhaps more likely to be motivated by their friends, neighbors, brothers, dad's encouraging them that even if they doggy paddle, ride a banana seat, and walk - they cross that like as a triathlete. There are two issues here - women in general in sport; and equality for PRO women in sport. My personal opinion is that while overlap exists the may each have unique solutions.

I do agree that if WTC were to send a message regarding equality that would be HUGE for sport in general and ironman specifically. I do think they need to be leaders in the industry. They should also do the most testing, deeper payouts, etc.

---

________________________________________________
Don't Just Live, Thrive!
Thrive Kinematics Physical Therapy - http://www.facebook.com/...8178667572974?ref=hl

You are using your values to judge why a pro may want to race Kona. It is not about making money for many of them.//

No, we are using the value system of professional athletics. And the first line at the top of the page says, you must make more money than you spend. Way down the list may be, do a bucket list race that costs me a 1/2 years pay, but for the most part I think most every pro would like to have a shot at some money at Kona. If it is not about making money, then they really are not pros in the first place, just great AG'ers getting to play a foursome with Tiger, and the other real pros. I do not think this should be the make up of the world champs, just like those good amateurs don't get to play in the Masters.


The pro fields should actually be cut in response to the 10 person payouts there, but as i have explained before, that would not be in WTC's interest. They are using their leverage to suit their needs, not the pros needs, that seems pretty evident. Don't blame them one bit either, they have virtually no opposition to this system. Other things they have enacted have met huge resistance(usually on here by the way) and they have changed. But basically they are getting the pros begging for more slots, and nothing else to go along with it. All wins for them.

I don't think the argument here should be whether it's "easier" for men or women to qualify, I think the argument should be about what helps move our sport forward as a whole. Men and women need to have equal slots, mostly because it's a symbolic gesture for WTC to show that it cares equally about male pros and female pros. Not because male and female participation is 50/50 or the 50th female pro is the same % down from the winners time as the 50th male. It's because we're progressive and it's the right thing to do.

The next question is how many spots should there be. As someone previously said, if you chop the men down to 35 that creates animosity towards women for limiting them for the sake of being "equal". If you increase it to 50, you dilute the field but so what? It won't change who finishes in the top 10, but it will change the amount of exposure the different brands and sponsors get with their athletes in Kona, it might draw in more AGers to care about the pro race at Kona and the races leading up to it to see whether their local pros make the cut. More pros get a KQ bonus payday and maybe can quit their full time jobs to ultimately shoot for that top 10 in kona the next year. As long as the field size stays to a reasonable size for safety and logistics, I think more is better.

Giving pros more "breathing room" is also better overall for the sport, but maybe not WTC's strong hold on the Iron distance. To allow the mid pack pros to race the races they want to, get a few more paydays from Challenge that they wouldn't have gotten from desperately chasing KPR points all season. That would make for a healthier long course tri market than what we have today.

---

http://trainingwheelsrequired.wordpress.com
@KellyNCollier

I guess this is where I disagree and sort of agree. I am not sure that Pro women represent all women in sport...As I woman I am inspired by Carfrae, Wellington, Haskins, the Emma's etc but I am more likely to actually participate because of Sally down the street. Perhaps this n=1 is not representative, but I think driving woman to sport at the lower levels is the first step and unfortunately this may not equal the same initiatives as the need for equality for the female pros. You are right - Men are on fire about this topic, but has anyone looked at the differences in motivating factors for men and women?

I would venture that there are some women who are motivated by the pointy end of the spear, but the deep seeded inequality that you are speaking about does not change because of the 1% - those people are unattainable for most of us and many women are intimidated to the point where they will not participate because they could never dream of running a sub 3 hour marathon alone much less at the end of Kona! Your daughters, sisters, mothers, etc are perhaps more likely to be motivated by their friends, neighbors, brothers, dad's encouraging them that even if they doggy paddle, ride a banana seat, and walk - they cross that like as a triathlete. There are two issues here - women in general in sport; and equality for PRO women in sport. My personal opinion is that while overlap exists the may each have unique solutions.

I do agree that if WTC were to send a message regarding equality that would be HUGE for sport in general and ironman specifically. I do think they need to be leaders in the industry. They should also do the most testing, deeper payouts, etc.[/quote]
As rheisler said further up this thread, you need top down pull and bottom up push. WTC needs to do the top down pull while we at the grass roots do the bottom up push and encourage our women friends and next generation to take up and STAY in sport. WTC generally does well at this point to provide fair opportunities to women. The glaring discrepency is the Kona start line, but it is so important that everything else they do gets someone overshadowed because of the implicit message they send with the 50/35 current split.

Thought about this too. So if we have equal Kona slots for Pro's, would it be fair to argue all AG's get equal slots, or at least equal at the same AG breakdown per M/F?

Monty....you are still using your values....you needed to make money of sport. Others don't neccessarily do this for money (although it would be nice). They are bored of cleaning up age group and want the additional challenge to race with the pros and see if they can improve and make the next step....what's wrong with a bunch of pros investing their own money, getting experience in Kona and then perhaps seeing a line of sight to hit top 10 in the future. They can make plenty of money outside sport, so they are only doing this for the challenge and happen to be pretty good....in time they may also make more money and hit the pointy end as they progress. In other sports, a lot of good amateurs or second tier get to play the real pros...look at the FA Cup in the UK for example (you'll need to dig up the details on how that works).

There are two sides to this. If the only reason to be pro was to make money pretty soon in our sport we would not have pro competition. There is not enough money to really warrant it. The top pros also need some people to beat. So you need people with hopes and dreams and who don't care about money to be cannon fodder for the top guys until suddenly some of them emerge as real contenders.

If you guys used your analogy, we would not have Chrissy Wellington winning in Kona in 2007. No Luc Van Lierde in 1996. No Hellriegel putting the fear of the bike into Mark Allen in 1995. Chrissy was not a "real pro" in her first shot...just an age grouper playing around who won IM Korea and the Alpe d'Huez tri!

To use my logic we would have all those outliers still winning. My true advocacy in this matter is to go back to how it has always been. Have a pro card, you get to race. All this bullshit about the fields being too big, well I see bigger lead groups now than I ever have.

Wut? Sutto put Wellington into Kona knowing full well she could win. He didn't send her there to get a nice tan and cocktails on the beach.

you are still using your values....you needed to make money of sport.
We are using the values of the term 'professional athlete'. See, professional athletes make money off of being an athlete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Professional_sports

Others don't neccessarily do this for money (although it would be nice).
Agreed. We call them amateurs.

what's wrong with a bunch of pros investing their own money, getting experience in Kona and then perhaps seeing a line of sight to hit top 10 in the future.
Nothing wrong at all. They are amazing, hard working, gifted, awesome people. If they want to race for free, go right ahead. Just don't pretend that they are professional athletes.

They can make plenty of money outside sport,
No one's arguing this. They are free to make any amount of money outside of sport that they are capable. This point is not even close to addressing the number of pros, gender or pros, or how much Kona pros could/ should be making off of Kona itself.

so they are only doing this for the challenge and happen to be pretty good.
Now, who's the one speculating as to why other people want to do Kona?

Until triathlon starts treating all of their pros as professional athletes (including the athletes themselves), the number of 'pros' aligning the pier at Kona doesn't seem like the greatest use of our energy/ resources. Any professional athlete who has earned their way to the World Championship deserves to be treated like a professional. Not like someone who could use this as a learning experience or a potential marketing campaign, but a real, honest to goodness professional athlete.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

One thing that I have noticed in the results of IM races is that the female pro results trail off faster than the men's, with fewer "contenders" at a given race.
The gap between the top flight and second tier pros appears to be larger than in the men's category.

I don't disagree with the above.

An interesting observation I made was that in the last couple of years of the old system, the competition in the women's race at Kona, away from the lime-light and the media coverage, from 15 - 30th places roughly was actually fairly deep and competitive!

Point being - it was starting to build up, but then they changed the model and I know that more than a few women who, in the new system knew they would be on-the-bubble or a long shot and had previously been there in Kona, just did not bother even trying to qualify any more.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But that is what Kona is about for > 90% of age groupers and pros. It is about the experience. Even Rinnie said she doesn't understand why so many pros (who have no chance of placing) want to incur the expense of Kona.
Many just want to go, have the experience, and be able to talk about it for the rest of their lives.

It was only 10 years ago that there were more than 80 pro men and over 50 pro women, I don't see why you couldn't expand both fields to say 65 and 50 or equal at 50-50 or 65 and 65. Given the better or more open start times now.

From a technical or logistical point of view there isn't really an argument anymore. Regarding the equality argument my opinion is that if you look at women in sport historically usually you remove barriers first and then participation/increased competition follows not the other way around.

WTC from my point of view is now looking at flat/neutral growth (at best….my opinion though) , if they want to change that they need to look at events outside of NA and try to increase participation of women from 15-25% of the race to closer to the NA ratio which is more like 1/3.

Maurice

I find it sad that most of the retired pros, the biggest names in the sport with nothing to lose, are silent on these issues. People like Dave Scott and Paula Newby Fraser have loud megaphones--they could be speaking up and leading the way, and doing it in a way that benefits the sport over the long term.

It's curious that both of them are on the wtc payroll in minor roles; it appears Messick has found a cheap way to buy their silence and assent.

I don't have the in-depth longer term history of the sport that many here do, so I've been asking this question:
Can anyone share stories where these "Legends of Triathlon," like Dave Scott and PNF, have used their fame to lead the sport through troublesome issues? If so, I'd love to hear them so I can find someone else to pick on.

I think the qualifying system and prize distribution is much more important than the number of slots on the start line. I don't think it will make any difference one way or the other if there are 50 women on the start line in kona.

The massive change in the NCAA system was directly related to increases in funding, not increases in available spots on university teams. Without the scholarships, women wouldn't be flocking to NCAA programs.

If they bump the prize money or other financial support systems, that will increase the depth and quality of the pro fields. Adding more spots might be a nice guesture for those that care, but likely won't have any real impact.

It sounds like you're talking about the ambitions of an age grouper and not a pro. A professional racer (this is a race right?) should be in the race with the mindset of winning. They shouldn't race Kona, because "it's a cool experience". They should want to be there, because it's supposed to be the world championship for their sport, and they want to win.

People like Dave Scott and Paula Newby Fraser have loud megaphones--they could be speaking up and leading the way, and doing it in a way that benefits the sport over the long term.

It's curious that both of them are on the wtc payroll in minor roles; it appears Messick has found a cheap way to buy their silence and assent.//

Not sure what Dave's roll is with WTC, but Paula has a full time job with them, and for quite some time. So no minor role, at least for her. And my guess that many of the old guard do not chime in is that the issue has passed them. Look, the current pros are not addressing it and they are the ones affected. If the folks that could move the needle don't care enough to get together and work on their own issues, why would anyone expect others well past this phase to do anything meaningful? Dave was very supportive in our day of the triathlete union, at a time when he did not have to be. He did quite well on his own, but threw his hat into the ring a couple of times to support the unions. I believe Paula too supported these endeavors back in the day, however her agent was dead set against it, and fought tooth and nail to derail it, and eventually did...

Why not cut the men's field? That is exactly what the NCAA has effectively done with Title IX (and huge numbers of scholarships for football)? How many division 1 schools field men's soccer and track teams these days? And just to be clear I don't think cutting men's participation is the right way to go for WTC or the NCAA.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

I don't think there is really a tactical, technical or financial argument against allowing 15 more women on the pier or Qween K. This is about creating equal (or at worst a better…meaning 65-50 split) opportunity and then perhaps increased competition will follow.

It's an idealogical question which WTC isn't taking a stand on….either way…..It's their brand at the end of the day, ultimately they should create a strong position/statement on this issue. Whether I or others agree/disagree.

Maurice

Two of the men's top five at Kona last year (Hoffman #41 and Viennot #38) wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was limited to thirty-five athletes. Two more men in the top ten (Frommhold #44 and Guillaume #48) also wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was thirty-five. So, the size of the qualifying field does have an impact at the front of the race.

Two of the men's top five at Kona last year (Hoffman #41 and Viennot #38) wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was limited to thirty-five athletes. Two more men in the top ten (Frommhold #44 and Guillaume #48) also wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was thirty-five. So, the size of the qualifying field does have an impact at the front of the race. //

But you really cannot say this, or know it. SInce the last qualifier is the same as the first, many folks will not chase extra points if they don't have to. Once you know you will get top 50, then many will just put it on cruise control. If they had to, many of the 30 to 50 would step up their game and qualify. Of course there would be 15 less guys, so someone is going to lose out, but the really good guys would just have to be more WTC committed.

Increase it to 50-50 equal with 10 spots on each side for "wild card opportunities" IE ITU studs etc, provided they Validate ;-)

Maurice

And if they had to race more, or with more effort, to chase points in order to qualify, maybe they wouldn't have placed in the top-ten at Kona.

Thanks for that perspective. But I think the chance of a union forming is virtually nil, regardless of how much effort is put into it. You yourself experienced the difficulties of it, and the current political climate is even worse for unions now. And that's even for companies where there are actual employees.

I cut the current pros slack because each individual has a lot to risk with potentially little to gain. We have an expectation of pros to be quiet and gracious, smiling and good natured. Don't rock the boat. Sticking your neck out on an issue might mean you go without a bike sponsor, or worse. Over the past 20 years the fans and sponsors have demanded this.

But folks like Dave Scott and PNF have made their name, and have taken fame and (semi) fortune for themselves. It's time they give something back to the sport, instead of just promoting their own brand name and coaching services, and continually living off of past glory.

I think we're seeing that our past "heroes" of the sport aren't very heroic at all because they won't look beyond themselves. This isn't about helping individual pros who are currently in the sport--it's about helping the long-term viability of the sport. It's about prize money catching the eye of the high school freshman to turn to triathlon instead of track or swimming.

I've realized that leadership is not going to come from the so-called Legends of Triathlon. It's going to come from the people who actually generate the money in the sport--the age groupers and fans who pay wtc and challenge and industry their multitudes of millions. If the old Heroes of Kona don't step up, they're about to lose their iron halos as this train leaves the station.

And if they had to race more, or with more effort, to chase points in order to qualify, maybe they wouldn't have placed in the top-ten at Kona. //

I agree 100%, thus the incentive to sandbag if you are a pro towards the bottom, but have a pretty secured slot. My point to you was you cannot just use some guys that qualified low, who then placed high, as an example of who would have gotten in that year. Once the rules change, then the dynamic also changes. I mean, even at 50+ pro men now, there are some potential money earners who don't get in for this or that reason. That is why i liked the old system of let then all race. Everyone get their shot, and no one is cooked because of qualifiers. But then that takes away all the juice in having a series where folks "have" to race to get in. They would actually have to pay for pros then, not just hold them hostage to a slot like it is now.

A whopping 7 female pro's on the starting line today at IMNZ.....They are paying 10 deep.

And your point is?

10th place pays a whopping $750. 7th pays $1500. Less than half of what fans raised for 7th at Lake Placid.

For your job, would you spend $3000 in travel to get a paycheck for half of your expenses? Especially when, within the same month, you could travel to Australia or Dubai to get a paycheck in the $10,000 to $65,000 range?

That's a great point. Why then, did the same calculus not hold for the men's field? I'm still wrapping my head around the issue of fairness...not in the abstract, but it's interpretation and application in the case of WTC IM racing.

There are a lot more AUS, NZ based male pro's than female pro's.

Given that there are a lot less female pros in NZ and AUS and with IM Melb being so close, a lot of the AUS females choose to stay in AUS for Melb.

Look at the men's race, the top half of the field is almost all Kiwi and almost the entire top 10 is based in NZ or currently AUS.

By having the races so close and w/ Melb being weighed more heavily, WTC has effectively made IMNZ a race for AUS & NZ compared to the very tough and international fields it used to draw.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

very myopic.

I'm sure if you used your (hopefully) excellent math skills and you think about the fact that Melb is in 15d and where the majority of pro female triathletes are based, you'll realize that it's pretty much a fools errand for most female pro's to go to NZ.

I'm surprised they got 7.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

There are 20 pro men racing. Something like two-thirds of all ironman pros are men. So the math generally does hold. All but 3-4 of those pro men are developmental, and virtually all of them live in NZ or Australia, so the travel expenses are cheap.

As for why 2/3 of ironmen pros are men: I know a bunch of men and women who have qualified for their pro cards. Almost all men who do so will get the card and race pro for at least a year or two, simply because they think it's a fun thing to do. Even if they have no chance at prize money.

But the women I know who have qualified are much less less likely to turn pro if they don't think they can actually win money.

So it's my experience that it's the bottom of the pro women's field that's missing. If all the women who qualified as pro actually got their pro cards, there'd be just as many pro women as pro men. And Messick would have to come up with a new excuse to have unequal slots at Kona.

Thanks Brian, I'd assumed that to be the case but hadn't checked to validate that fact. I guess a bit of data searching on my part is in order before wading too deep into this one. I don't have any connection to the pro ranks other than as an interested spectator and fan at this point, but it seems a good time to educate myself in order to have an informed opinion. Good work with NB btw, pulling for him to have a great race.

Is there any indication that Andrew would be looking for an "excuse" to do that? I'd suspect were the numbers roughly equal, we might very well have equal slots already, though there would still be an argument (with some merit) that maintaining the competitiveness of the field should have some influence. BTW, if that argument were to end up skewing the numbers towards a women's field larger than the men's...no problem.

I coach an age group female that rarely would finish out of the money if she raced pro. She's been top 5 numerous times and even more top 10's then I can remember at IM's and 70.3's. She would be racing in the black the last few years on prize money alone.

but she's "just a mum who does this more for fun then anything"

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

While I'm being a little bit snarky, at this point his refusal to just make equal slots is beyond comprehension. A dozen different analyses have been done of the field, and nobody has made a compelling case that a women's field 50 deep would be less competitive than the men's.

Late in last season he asked women to vote on it for kona 2014, and it was seen as very divisive timing (because most women had already qualified by racing a ton of races). A logical response would have been to rehold that vote for 2015, or just implement equal slots and be done with it. But he's basically been silent about the topic ever since, even as the 2015 season is now well underway, and women are planning their travel schedules.

The longer he draws this out, the more of a black eye it gives ironman. It's clearly his own ego at play here.

Yes, that's the reason I most commonly hear. I think men are more likely to put their long-term careers on hold for a few years of racing pro, knowing they can easily jump back into their real career.

But women who are planning to have children know they will interrupt a few years of their career for that, and are reluctant to interrupt it for a few years more by racing full time.

"The longer he draws this out, the more of a black eye it gives ironman. It's clearly his own ego at play here."

I don't have a problem with your first sentence here. What you state here about it clearly being an ego in play...well that's another matter. Is that the only reasonable explanation? Do you have insight and knowledge of that being the case?

Call it intuition. We've heard no logical reason to not make equal slots. Which leaves 5 possible reasons that I can identify:

1. Andrew Messick is clinically insane; or,
2. Andrew Messick has an IQ lower than 100 and is incapable of logical thought; or,
3. WTC has a nefarious financial reason that is too embarrassing to reveal; or,
4. Andrew Messick hates women; or,
5. Andrew Messick has a huge ego, feels he's been backed into a corner, and won't budge because doing so would shatter that ego.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's number 5. If someone wants to argue for 1-4, or an entirely different reason, I'm all ears.

They are pretending to be a governing body... no legit governing body under the IOC is allowed to act that way anymore.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

On paper and in theory, it should be an equal number of slots. That is the fair, and easy thing to do. I am in full agreement with that.

However, the reality is the whole Professional model in triathlon is broken and/or dysfunctional. Fixing that, will be a HUGE if not impossible challenge.

The reality is there are only a very small group of triathletes existing in the realm of what being a true professional athlete is. Almost all others exist in this netherworld between Pro and Amateur. They can't make enough directly from competing, so over time they have resorted to other means of support and income. There is nothing wrong with, this, it's just the reality of the situation. Because, they may have become "comfortable" with this situation, for them, there really is no need to change the system. If they win some money at a race or score a bonus, from a sponsor, it's a nice little perk!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Replying to the thread in general.
I was just reading the front page recap of Challenge Dubai and noticed this:
So we had double the number of men show up for the opportunity for the biggest payout in the history of the sport? (I think the million dollars series payout would be the biggest, correct me if I am wrong please)
So a few questions.
Was this by design? Meaning did you need to be invited?
And if you did need to be invited will we jump all over Challenge for this?
If entry was open to all, why so few women? There is huge money on the line here.

AFAIK it was open entry.

Women probably saw the start list and thought the prize money was pretty much won.

Expensive vacation for a second tier female pro.

Men's field is closer competitively... more guys had a shot at the prize purse.

Based on what theory?

Why is that inherently "fair" thing to do?

Bearing in mind that apart from say, the first 20 across the line, Pros and AGs alike tend to refer to their finish position in their gender and/or age group, rather than overall, I don't understand why there aren't 2 separate races. One gender on Saturday and the other on Sunday.
Just think how much more money that would generate too.

So isn't it kind of like Kona then? An expensive vacation for a second tier pro?

Call it intuition. We've heard no logical reason to not make equal slots. Which leaves 5 possible reasons that I can identify: //

I've heard a very logical reason not to do this, this year. What about all the women who planned their seasons to make sure they got top 35, made sacrifices in their schedules, and tapered for certain races to make sure they made it? There is no doubt in my mind that many, if not most of the bubble ladies, say 10th to 35th are either openly or secretly hoping not to have this happen this year. Now next year, you are right in that this one valid excuse will evaporate, and it will be hard not to give parity to the womens. But i find that publishing a set of criteria for a particular season, and then changing it last minute, well that is not good policy either..

Is there (should there be) a push for gender equality in AG slots?

I don't really see a difference in the argument from pros to AGs.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

The current AG slot allocation is gender blind, it's based on numbers. As a previous poster noted, the opportunity is not achieved due to lower participation rates amongst women. If more women entered, then they would get more slots: if it were a straight 50/50 split between the sexes then there would be equal slots between them. If more women lined up than men, then they would get more slots.

If anything, you've got more chance getting a slot if you're a woman than if you're a man (due to the single slot allocation to any AG that is represented). For example, 6 18-24 females lined up at IMNZ last year. 31 men lined up in that AG. The men had two slots and the women one slot.

---

Swim. Overbike. Walk.

Then wouldn't it be analogous that they issue Kona pro slots based on the number of male and female pro cards that are issued.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

That sounds similar to the old system, with each race being given a certain number of slots to the pros, top of the podium gets first refusal then roll down, like AG. However, that didn't fit with WTC, so they moved it to a points based qualification system.

It would be interesting to see the figures on pro licensing, but I feel from the race results I've seen (and I have no other data to back this up) that slot allocation based on distribution of licenses would lead to even fewer pro women on the start line.

---

Swim. Overbike. Walk.

I guess people all have their own definition of equality.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

I'd say it was logical reason for Kona 2014, when the women were asked to vote in summer 2014. In fact, a number of pro women who voted against it then have publicly stated that was their reason for doing so. But they've also publicly stated they thought the timing of the vote was very divisive and unfair.

And every logical person expected there would be vote soon after (maybe October 2014?) for Kona 2015. Or simply a declaration that there'd be 50 women in 2015.

That there's been total silence from wtc since then defies all reasonable behavior. To offer a vote 2 months before 2014 kona, but not one 12, 10, or now 7 months before the 2015 race is beyond comprehension. Not even a statement of, "Hey, quit asking for 50 spots for 2015, it's not going to happen."

Apparently they wouldn't even let their newly formed "Women for Tri" committee vote on it.

You're right about the timing now--seasons have been planned. I'll agree that changing it last minute is not good policy But the total silence since last summer is even worse--and the more I think about it the more I find Messick's behavior manipulative and cynical.

So I'm currently rethinking my hunch that it's just ego at play, and leaning toward believing he's truly a misogynist.

The first championship race hasn't happened yet. There's no good reason not to do it now.

Season's are in rough form now. Athletes have an idea, but you know, they are in flux. An extra 15 slots for the women probably isn't going to change racing behavior at all. The ones who are going to be fit for IM Melbourne and IM South Africa are going to be the ones that are keying on that race. The ones banking on more people not being ready are most of the same ones that are going to have to do 3 fulls anyway.

That was the argument some made last year. "Well if I would have known, then I wouldn't have raced as much." To some point I could see that argument. But, when you got down to it, the girls who were at the end of the cutoff were going to have to do the same number of races anyway whether there were 35 or 50 spots. There were probably only about 5 who didn't change their racing behavior to get a spot, and none of them raced Kona because of it. The ones that did an August IM would have had to have done one anyway.

The ONLY possible argument that I can see that makes any bit of sense would be IF they decided to cut the men's field right now.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

What's the goal of having the Ironman World Championship? I think that for the pro race it is to crown a pro champion. Cutting the men's field would have an influence on the podium and potentially the winner (wasn't Hoffman something like 30th plus in the rankings this year). I don't think adding ladies to the race will have any inflience on their podium. When was the last time the 35th woman was a threat in the race? How is adding more than that going to improve the event?

HOWEVER, if slots are not limited (ie if WTC can add some without subtracting others), by all means, add more ladies, hell, add more men and women, do 100/100, why not.

I just don't think there is space for more without taking someone else's spot. If that's the case, who are you going to tell that they don't deserve their spot (which they earned via the rules, with exception of a few celebs I guess).

This would all be more palatable if it were possible to actually audit the slots (how every spot was assigned, who KQ'd, who got military, who got in via Hawaii local spots, who were executive challenge, who were celebs, who bought the eBay spots, etc. total number equals total number of starters). I find it odd that such information isn't readily available unless they really want to keep such secret intentionally.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

Hoffman was 41st in the rankings in 2014 so in a 35/35 world the runnerupmdoesnt make it. Sure knowing there would be only 35 changes some season plans, but your point is taken. And I agree with it. Which woman who didn't qualify sniffs even the top 10?

So isn't it kind of like Kona then? An expensive vacation for a second tier pro?[/quote]
Yeah, but at least you don't have to pay WTC $800 for a pro membership, and do a qualifying IM... or 2, or 3...