Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R*
Quote | Reply
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Last edited by: Terra-Man: Oct 1, 16 3:24
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just wait, he will receive no sympathy from the gang here at ST, and they will likely demand to see his medical files, to see his reasons for requiring said chapstick........... ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He broke the rules and got caught. He even knew what he was doing was against the rules, that is why his wife dropped it on the ground and he picked it up.

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SBRcoffee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[url=https://imgflip.com/i/1bj9oy][/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]via Imgflip Meme Generator[/url]


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is how it starts...

First its chapstick, then sunscreen, then a salt tablet, then a gel, then water, etc, etc.......

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. Ridiculous.

Long Chile was a silly place.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Obviously he should've had her smear chapstick on herself and gone for the kiss...


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed - chapstick may seem trivial, but a rule is a rule.

At least he accepted the ref's decision without whining about it on ST (as most STer's would do) and moved on. Great example to his athletes.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I totally take responsibility for the decision because it was a conscious decision that I made asking for it," said Smith. "My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

It's kinda like dealing with my kids... Sometimes they try to hide things from me because they think it's wrong even if it's something trivial that I don't care about. But what does this say about intent? Do they think they're breaking the rules and try to get away with it anyway?

But... this whole thing is silly. I can't imagine how tough this DQ is to take.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SAvan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah he accepted the ref's decision...I woulda given her some lip


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I totally get it wasn't performance enhancing but I also understand the race rules and the officials not having to worry about deciding if this outside assistance is okay and this other one not. And the throwing it on the ground for him to pick up. They knew it was against the rules and risked it anyway. And lost. Sorry.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
maybe it was a cortisone cream?

Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
"My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

So by "careful", he really means "sneaky".

Yeah, it seems trivial, but he knew what he was doing was against the rules and he tried to sneak around it, got caught and DQ'd. Oh well....Full credit to him for not arguing with the official and just accepting the penalty, however.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The most important question is if he would have KQ'd w/o the chapstick?!?!?!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Rules are rules but this is as bogus as its gets for the AG level, even at KQ level. Still, props to him for just going with the rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Yeah he accepted the ref's decision...I woulda given her some chapped lip
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
First its chapstick, then sunscreen, then a salt tablet, then a gel, then water, etc, etc.......


1. I am amazed that any official saw this. I do not recall ever seeing officials on the run course. How did he get caught?

2. Maybe the slippery slope is what did him in. A tube of chapstick is similar in size and shape to a tube of BASE salt. Did the witness think it was salt?

Also M40-44 had 4 slots, not 2 slots as said in the article. I would have thought the video would include a finish line shot of him to "prove" this time (at least approximate time).
Last edited by: mdm81: Sep 30, 16 7:27
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree, very very unlikely and unlucky a ref saw this.

That said, he says "we knew it was against the rules" and then did it anyways. I think he's very unlucky, but also fine with the penalty.

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i don't know this athlete but my friend was in the finish area at that protein shake tent when the head official was talking to this guy. his wife not only dropped stuff on the ground for him -sneaky- but was riding along with him for something like a mile. he was actually given a penalty on the course for all of this, which i think should have been a DQ on the spot. right? he was then seen again with his wife still biking along side of him and then they DQ him i am the first to jump on wtc and call BS but seems chapstick guy left out a few/many important details of the day when interviewed by news crew. wild thing too wife was standing outside of the finish area with bike and helmet
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
albertok wrote:
i don't know this athlete but my friend was in the finish area at that protein shake tent when the head official was talking to this guy. his wife not only dropped stuff on the ground for him -sneaky- but was riding along with him for something like a mile. he was actually given a penalty on the course for all of this, which i think should have been a DQ on the spot. right? he was then seen again with his wife still biking along side of him and then they DQ him i am the first to jump on wtc and call BS but seems chapstick guy left out a few/many important details of the day when interviewed by news crew. wild thing too wife was standing outside of the finish area with bike and helmet

And the plot thickens!!!

Wow just wow.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How hot was the wife?

Not that this is important in the context of the DQ, but inquiring minds want to know.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anyone have wind tunnel data comparing wearing chapstick to not wearing chapstick?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I heard this similar story too from an another person who was intimate with the decision of the DQ. Definitely a lot of other important details that were left out in the TV interview. Essentially the chapstick hand off was just the icing on the cake of several other infractions and warnings of outside support he was caught receiving.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [bujayman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


Last edited by: TH3_FRB: Sep 30, 16 8:16
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [bujayman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?

I could be wrong but I didn't think you could do any of that. I thought it would be considered outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriTamp wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


I could be wrong but I didn't think you could do any of that. I thought it would be considered outside assistance.

can't do that. you can "leapfrog" but *i think* feet have to be on the ground as is no running or riding beside someone racing



---------------------------------------
Fruit snacks are for winners
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't see pacing mentioned in WTC's "Outside Assistance" rules. Just in the USAT one. But what constitutes pacing? Assuming the women in his run photos on the bike is his wife, she looks to be a good amountbehind him. I feel like I see the Spectator/spouse doing something like this in almost every race, trialing behind offering words of encouragement. Is that pacing?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ubdawg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ubdawg wrote:
I don't see pacing mentioned in WTC's "Outside Assistance" rules. Just in the USAT one. But what constitutes pacing? Assuming the women in his run photos on the bike is his wife, she looks to be a good amountbehind him. I feel like I see the Spectator/spouse doing something like this in almost every race, trialing behind offering words of encouragement. Is that pacing?

Yes it is

And doesn't there have to be multiple violations? Outside assistance is not a DQ first offense but a time penalty
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?

I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

You don't have the wherewithal to type out husband, but you can go all caps on totally?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


I forgot about the pacing gorilla thread! This just made my Friday!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


I thought it was pretty big of Dave and Mark to pace this gorilla guy. Glad they didn't get DQed.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Goosedog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Goosedog wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

You don't have the wherewithal to type out husband, but you can go all caps on totally?

TOTALLY

hubs was the full lenth word. No idea what "husband" is.

Where I scrimped was shortening "wifester" to "wife"
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SBRcoffee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcoffee wrote:
Just wait, he will receive no sympathy from the gang here at ST, and they will likely demand to see his medical files, to see his reasons for requiring said chapstick........... ;)


Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [skip] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hahaha


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did see the official on the run course. He was at the end of the walnut street pedestrian bridge near the start of the second run loop, or turn to the finish. When the 2nd place female came by, a friend of hers ran along side of her for a short period of time. The official sprinted down the street ready to give her a penalty or DQ her. Guess he had a last minute change of heart. He explained to the friend that she couldn't run along side any athlete and I guess that was the end of it.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
said athlete also calls that "integrity"
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [tightcalves] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tightcalves wrote:
The official sprinted down the street ready to give her a penalty or DQ her. Guess he had a last minute change of heart.

Or realized it was hot as hell and didn't want to chase her anymore.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
albertok wrote:
i don't know this athlete but my friend was in the finish area at that protein shake tent when the head official was talking to this guy. his wife not only dropped stuff on the ground for him -sneaky- but was riding along with him for something like a mile. he was actually given a penalty on the course for all of this, which i think should have been a DQ on the spot. right? he was then seen again with his wife still biking along side of him and then they DQ him i am the first to jump on wtc and call BS but seems chapstick guy left out a few/many important details of the day when interviewed by news crew. wild thing too wife was standing outside of the finish area with bike and helmet

so he was given a penalty prior to the penalty for the chapstick? If that's true then I feel even less sympathy for him now.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
How hot was the wife?
Or, How hairy?

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why didn't he put it in his special needs bag and/or fuel belt?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ffips] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Or why not just run with chapped lips??!!

You gotta be pretty tough to rise to the top of this sport. Dry lips is way down the list of things to get (illegal) assistance for


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.

Have you seen all the threads on drafting recently? Or all the threads after every single IM brazil and florida about drafting?

You do know there is a such thing as legal drafting? It is completely within the rules and what you are probably referring to.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's hard to believe a guy who trained 15-20 hours per week for the past 6 months would just accept a DQ if he didn't do anything other than the chapstick incident (which he got a time penalty for). Pretty certain there is more missing from the story.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisM wrote:
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/

This guy is so full of schitt.....He clearly got what he deserved.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ffips] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ffips wrote:
Why didn't he put it in his special needs bag and/or fuel belt?

I'm willing to bet that, next time, he will...
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who the hell gets chapped lips in 80% humidity or whatever it was?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [sp1ke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the spf?







Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Or why not just run with chapped lips??!!

Maybe he planned on applying it to other sensitive parts if the body...
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Even the leapfrogging doesn't sound like the whole story. At Chattanooga and many other IM courses it is easy to leapfrog and see someone ~8 times during a two loop run. How much leapfrogging is too much?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mdm81 wrote:
Even the leapfrogging doesn't sound like the whole story. At Chattanooga and many other IM courses it is easy to leapfrog and see someone ~8 times during a two loop run. How much leapfrogging is too much?

Yeah, I don't think the "full story" headline is accurate either LOL Leapfrogging is fine, pacing or OA is not.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.

Have you seen all the threads on drafting recently? Or all the threads after every single IM brazil and florida about drafting?

You do know there is a such thing as legal drafting? It is completely within the rules and what you are probably referring to.

Nope, and please don't assume you know what I am referring to. I am referring to ILLEGAL drafting, not 10m out (or 12), not slingshotting during a legal pass, none of that. I'm referring to the peletons of 20+ blatantly sitting on wheels that are becoming the norm and that so many people just shrug and say "what can you do?" about, yet chapstick???!?!?!?!?!? "Now THAT. THAT is just TOO much!".

Classic ST moral relativism.

Im guilty of it too, but, FFS, chapstick? Of all the things to take a stand on the rules being rules, chapstick is about the worst Ive ever heard
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i saw his wife pacing him on the run course. the first thing i thought of was.... well, that's not allowed. but i didn't really care.

giving splits is one thing, cycling along and cheering is one thing. but doing them both, with riding along side at times can be seen as pacing...

i mean, don't some coaches sit on the course and give splits from time to time?

john
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mdm81 wrote:
Even the leapfrogging doesn't sound like the whole story. At Chattanooga and many other IM courses it is easy to leapfrog and see someone ~8 times during a two loop run. How much leapfrogging is too much?

Apparently any.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power13 wrote:
ChrisM wrote:
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/


This guy is so full of schitt.....He clearly got what he deserved.
The irony! I can barely stand it!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ahhchon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ahhchon wrote:
i saw his wife pacing him on the run course. the first thing i thought of was.... well, that's not allowed. but i didn't really care.

giving splits is one thing, cycling along and cheering is one thing. but doing them both, with riding along side at times can be seen as pacing...

i mean, don't some coaches sit on the course and give splits from time to time?

john

I actually see coaches riding near their athletes quite frequently in Ironmans. It blows my mind that they don't understand this is illegal.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ahhchon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ahhchon wrote:
i saw his wife pacing him on the run course. the first thing i thought of was.... well, that's not allowed. but i didn't really care.

giving splits is one thing, cycling along and cheering is one thing. but doing them both, with riding along side at times can be seen as pacing...

i mean, don't some coaches sit on the course and give splits from time to time?

john

yes. I can see why many would see all of that as pacing. so I can understand if an official is seeing these different things and issues penalties/DQs. Seems he (or his wife did by leapfrogging and then pacing him on the run) put them in a difficult position to make a call.

I was in a marathon once and part was on a multi-use path and a guy had his wife riding along side him on her bike and providing him water and food along the way. This wasn't a BQ marathon and he was in my range of 3:45 marathon time so nobody cared and their were no officials on course to care anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [T-wrecks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
T-wrecks wrote:
Power13 wrote:
ChrisM wrote:
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/


This guy is so full of schitt.....He clearly got what he deserved.

The irony! I can barely stand it!

What is it that you find ironic?

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Trispoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trispoke wrote:
ahhchon wrote:
i saw his wife pacing him on the run course. the first thing i thought of was.... well, that's not allowed. but i didn't really care.

giving splits is one thing, cycling along and cheering is one thing. but doing them both, with riding along side at times can be seen as pacing...

i mean, don't some coaches sit on the course and give splits from time to time?

john


I actually see coaches riding near their athletes quite frequently in Ironmans. It blows my mind that they don't understand this is illegal.

Or do they understand and not care?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
stevej wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.

Have you seen all the threads on drafting recently? Or all the threads after every single IM brazil and florida about drafting?

You do know there is a such thing as legal drafting? It is completely within the rules and what you are probably referring to.

Nope, and please don't assume you know what I am referring to. I am referring to ILLEGAL drafting, not 10m out (or 12), not slingshotting during a legal pass, none of that. I'm referring to the peletons of 20+ blatantly sitting on wheels that are becoming the norm and that so many people just shrug and say "what can you do?" about, yet chapstick???!?!?!?!?!? "Now THAT. THAT is just TOO much!".

Classic ST moral relativism.

Im guilty of it too, but, FFS, chapstick? Of all the things to take a stand on the rules being rules, chapstick is about the worst Ive ever heard

Ok show me where on this forum someone said it was acceptable to blantantly draft (illegally) and not one person interjected in.

I'm with you that it's a bit much it being chapstick, but where do you draw the line? Like my other post stated, this just leads to more and more things. Oh it's just a gel.... 1 gel isn't going to give him and advantage......

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
mdm81 wrote:
Even the leapfrogging doesn't sound like the whole story. At Chattanooga and many other IM courses it is easy to leapfrog and see someone ~8 times during a two loop run. How much leapfrogging is too much?


Apparently any.



So having someone give you splits (between you and the guy ahead of you) at multiple places during an IM run is illegal?

Do the pros not get splits from people associated with the race during the race?
Last edited by: zilla: Sep 30, 16 14:55
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Trispoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trispoke wrote:
ahhchon wrote:
i saw his wife pacing him on the run course. the first thing i thought of was.... well, that's not allowed. but i didn't really care.

giving splits is one thing, cycling along and cheering is one thing. but doing them both, with riding along side at times can be seen as pacing...

i mean, don't some coaches sit on the course and give splits from time to time?

john


I actually see coaches riding near their athletes quite frequently in Ironmans. It blows my mind that they don't understand this is illegal.
This was BY FAR more prevalent at IMChoo than drafting, from my perspective. I saw one case of drafting. I saw 8-10 cases of somebody (coach, SO, friend, etc.) running or biking along side a runner for 100+ yards, giving encouragement, splits, placing, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well according to the rule book, you get DQd after three penalties. So there were likely two prior occurrences of other rule violations throughout the race for him before the Chap Stick incident. So yeah, there's likely more information being left out of the story.

_________________________________
Steve Johnson
DARK HORSE TRIATHLON |
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/...562&action=click
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who owns a Garmin watch and uses that watch to help pacing? What the hell do I need my wife to run beside me for?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Imagine she may have been tracking the others in his age group and letting him know splits.

Or more?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What's the difference between this action, and having a local resident spray runners down with a garden hose as they pass? In 94 degree heat, that's certainly "outside assistance." If the latter is an offense, half of last week's Augusta field would be DQ'ed.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [teetopkram] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Available to everyone
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TrekRider68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Aha...
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TrekRider68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TrekRider68 wrote:
Imagine she may have been tracking the others in his age group and letting him know splits.

Or more?

I hope that's not illegal. I do that for my wife all the time. In races that end with an out-and-back run, I always count the women and tell her what place she's in and how far back/ahead she is.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thats maybe the Or More that we dont know about.

I am an almost 50 MOP....so on the run for me its finding a group that has the same goal and having a good time :)
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJRed wrote:
Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who owns a Garmin watch and uses that watch to help pacing? What the hell do I need my wife to run beside me for?

I certainly see pacing and not knowing where your competition as part of the fun and challenge. Without knowing where my age group competitors are at anytime I really have to think about whether I should push my pace or do I just stay at my current pace.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TrekRider68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The best yet is the Mark and Dave on Queen K with the gorilla....that is classic!!

Okay, just my .02 cents worth of an opinion (and yes, just an opinion...)

Chapstick be damned... that's pretty damn weak for a DQ, especially if the spouse through it down on the ground. Again, think of the swim, and the fact that you can hang onto a kayak, and then keep going once you have caught your breath. So how is a kayak on the swim any different from ChapStick on the run??? Both are aides, but yet yield no forward advancement.

Okay, I get it, he had other faults leading to a DQ. But seriously, a ChapStick?? I personally like the idea that he should have had his wife put the ChapStick on her lips and then kissed her. Now that's thinking like an attorney!!

Okay, seriously though, where is the line drawn on "outside help"??? A kiss from a a spouse, a ChapStick from a spouse, a gel from a spouse, an Immodium from a spouse, a hug from a spouse, a slap on the butt from a spouse, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,,,,(and on and on.....).

Ok, now the "riding along side (next to) (behind) (in front of) on a bike" during the run???? So where is the line of cheating with this? Keep in mind, the first 3 leaders of male and female ALREADY have a bike escort during the run. So, was the spouse riding too close to the run bike escort? Just asking???

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You guys are adorable. Next time I'm at a crew stop getting sunscreen applied, feet taped and enjoying whatever food and cold drinks I've had them bring I'll think back to reading on ST/FB/Twitter when all the triathletes got so outraged that one time a guy got passed some chapstick and "paced" for an indeterminate distance and I'll get a few miles worth of amusement out of it.

Twitter
Instagram
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kayak is race personnel assistance. It's allowed.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I like the guy's reaction. Takes it like a sportsman.

I think you want to penalize if the support/coaching is intentional and systematic (in the sense of repeated or carried out by a coach).

You don't want to make it a race where without supporter cars and team you are not really competitive anymore. By nature of the beast there is some discretion / judgment a referee needs to apply. Like my wife shouting "you are 25th because she is excited after T2" would certainly be ok - having a team of 5 at different spots on the course briefing me about all distances and paces of nearest competitors - probably not in the spirit of the rule.

Cheers
Roberto
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Taugen wrote:
The best yet is the Mark and Dave on Queen K with the gorilla....that is classic!!

Okay, just my .02 cents worth of an opinion (and yes, just an opinion...)

Chapstick be damned... that's pretty damn weak for a DQ, especially if the spouse through it down on the ground. Again, think of the swim, and the fact that you can hang onto a kayak, and then keep going once you have caught your breath. So how is a kayak on the swim any different from ChapStick on the run??? Both are aides, but yet yield no forward advancement.

Okay, I get it, he had other faults leading to a DQ. But seriously, a ChapStick?? I personally like the idea that he should have had his wife put the ChapStick on her lips and then kissed her. Now that's thinking like an attorney!!

Okay, seriously though, where is the line drawn on "outside help"??? A kiss from a a spouse, a ChapStick from a spouse, a gel from a spouse, an Immodium from a spouse, a hug from a spouse, a slap on the butt from a spouse, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,,,,(and on and on.....).

Ok, now the "riding along side (next to) (behind) (in front of) on a bike" during the run???? So where is the line of cheating with this? Keep in mind, the first 3 leaders of male and female ALREADY have a bike escort during the run. So, was the spouse riding too close to the run bike escort? Just asking???

I'd bet if it was just the chapstick they would have let him go. Its the 2-3 previous violations before that.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [teambernina] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not seeing how a kayak during the swim is an different from ChapStick on the run. Neither makes any forward progress. And yet the kayak actually aids the athlete in catching a breath or recovering heart rate. I don't see how ChapStick offers any benefit to race performance. A kayak can help a swimmer calm down, recover, and then move forward again in a faster manner or pace, yet I don't see that ChapStick has any performance benefit.

Then again, not trying to dwell on the whole ChapStick issue, as I know most will say it was the alleged pacing on the bike during the run that got him DQed. Personally, I really don't care, as I don't know the athlete, nor was I number 6 who just missed a slot because of his ChapStick or bike pacing.

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Taugen wrote:
The best yet is the Mark and Dave on Queen K with the gorilla....that is classic!!

Okay, just my .02 cents worth of an opinion (and yes, just an opinion...)

Chapstick be damned... that's pretty damn weak for a DQ, especially if the spouse through it down on the ground. Again, think of the swim, and the fact that you can hang onto a kayak, and then keep going once you have caught your breath. So how is a kayak on the swim any different from ChapStick on the run??? Both are aides, but yet yield no forward advancement.

Okay, I get it, he had other faults leading to a DQ. But seriously, a ChapStick?? I personally like the idea that he should have had his wife put the ChapStick on her lips and then kissed her. Now that's thinking like an attorney!!

Okay, seriously though, where is the line drawn on "outside help"??? A kiss from a a spouse, a ChapStick from a spouse, a gel from a spouse, an Immodium from a spouse, a hug from a spouse, a slap on the butt from a spouse, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,,,,(and on and on.....).

Ok, now the "riding along side (next to) (behind) (in front of) on a bike" during the run???? So where is the line of cheating with this? Keep in mind, the first 3 leaders of male and female ALREADY have a bike escort during the run. So, was the spouse riding too close to the run bike escort? Just asking???

I will make a few general comments. There are multiple reasons why there are lead bikers on the run. It varies from race to race how many. I won't get into that discussion unless you really want to but they do serve a legitimate purpose.

Now this past year the procedure actually changed. The lead bikers are supposed to stay behind the athletes. I say supposed to because often time lead bikers get very into the race and don't do what they are told. The rule likely changed because myself and a few other athletes were getting annoyed that not only were pros being paced and spoke up about it, but they were often breaking the wind for the athletes and remaining way to close especially in headwind type sections.

Anecdotally, I will say that I travel to races almost exclusively by myself. At Challenge Atlantic City in 2014, after passing Chris Boudreaux for 3rd, I picked up his lead pacer. This was a first year race and at this section of the course it was very congested on a narrower bike path type boardwalk with tourists having no idea a race was going on. Within 30 seconds of making the pass I was told to stand down and given a 4 minute penalty, 5 minutes by the time the official got her iPhone out, after slowing down and dismounting her bike. She was not wearing a helmet btw. I totally melted and started balling my eyes out at mile 16 of the run. I lost the podium, would have likely finished 2nd or even 1st and only secured a 5th because I had like a 20 minute gap at the time to 6th.

Now I mention this because in this instance the eventual winner had his GF all over the course giving splits but I became a little more educated in the process and learned a bunch. Fwiw In this case I was slightly behind the lead rider and he was kind of forging a path thru the crowd of people. I won't go into any further, some day I will, but till this day the appropriate USAT response should have been IMO to tell the lead rider to ride further ahead. It shouldn't be my responsibility to waste energy directing them to do it.

Circling back to this example, there is not a good reason why this person should have had their wife next to them. The rules could probably be simpler and made more clear, but given it takes three yellows for the DQ this racer must have either been caught for other violations like littering or whatever but regardless there were other infractions. Don't fall victim to reporting as clearly they are just trying to drive eyeballs.

A coach, friend and family member can give splits but they have to stay stationary. That is generally the excepted position IME. People out there who don't think pacing matters, go do a long run by yourself, then go do one with a friend or have your wife/husband ride sag next to you. There is a reason people do it, because mentally it is a lot easier to do it.

His mistake is he should have taken Lionel's approach and paid someone faster to pace him by giving them a boatload of cash, entry, accom etc. I don't like this idea either and I don't like that Lionel got away with it last year but it seems to be within the rules.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Taugen wrote:
Not seeing how a kayak during the swim is an different from ChapStick on the run.

Your kayak is like an official run course aid station. Yes, both provide aid. But both of these things are provided/permitted by the race director (i.e. not a third party outside of the competition) and equally available to every one. Kayak / official aid station = inside assistance. Chapstick "dropped" by wife = outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Okay so the original story out of Denver has been updated (using the original link) to include the full story, including new video report, pic of wife on bike, and response by Jimmy Riccitello below:

On Friday, Jimmy Riccitello, head referee for all IRONMAN officials, provided Denver7 with the following account of why Smith was disqualified:
"Athlete Matt Smith was seen being assisted by a woman on a bicycle (not officially associated with IRONMAN), who provided him at least one item (chapstick) that he used during the event. He was cited for Unauthorized Assistance, and issued a stop-and-go yellow card penalty. During the 30-45 seconds that Mr. Smith was serving his penalty, he was informed of the reason for the penalty and told not to continue receiving outside assistance. Prior to this penalty, Mr. Smith was seen in the company of the female on a bike.
Subsequent to this instance, Mr. Smith was witnessed several more times, receiving Unauthorized Assistance from the same woman on a bicycle who was involved in the first situation.
Due to Mr. Smith’s initial Unauthorized Assistance rule violation combined with subsequent occurrences of Unauthorized Assistance, Mr. Smith was met at the finish line and notified of his disqualification.
Mr. Smith also had a conversation with the Head Referee at the awards ceremony, where the reasons for his disqualification were reiterated. It was emphasized to Mr. Smith that his disqualification was for the combination of violations subsequent to his first stop-and-go penalty, and not solely for his initial penalty for illegally receiving the chapstick."

IRONMAN also provided three examples from the policy pecific to the IRONMAN Chattanooga Athlete guide:
  • "OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE": Non-racers may NOT ride or run alongside you.
  • 11. "No individual support allowed. Ample aid and food stations will be provided. Friends, family members, coaches, or supporters of any type may NOT bike, drive, or run alongside athlete, may not pass food or other items to athlete and should be warned to stay completely clear of all athletes to avoid the disqualification of the athlete. It is incumbent upon each athlete to immediately reject any attempt to assist, follow, or escort."
  • 3. NO INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT VEHICLES OR NON-ATHLETE ESCORT RUNNERS ARE ALLOWED. This is an individual endurance event. Teamwork as a result of outside assistance, which provides an advantage over single competitors, is not allowed. Individual support vehicles or non-athlete escort runners will result in disqualification. A non-athlete escort runner includes athletes who have withdrawn from the race, have been disqualified or have finished the race. Supporters of any type may NOT bike, drive, or run alongside the athlete, may not pass food or other items to athlete and should stay completely clear of all athletes to avoid the disqualification of the athlete. It is incumbent upon each athlete to immediately reject any attempt to assist, follow, or escort. It IS permissible for an athlete who is still competing to run with other athletes who are still competing."



Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The ironic thing is that the athlete, who proclaims to be so against arguing with officials, essentially did just that in a very passive aggressive way, by continuing to have his wife ride alongside him. Despite continued warnings.


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At one edition of IMLP I was running up the big climbs. At that time I was 42 and my 65 year old mother (you met her at 70.3 World's Vegas) jumped out of the crowd and starts running uphill with me. This was on the big uphill coming into town and the crowd sensing that some old woman was running with her son started cheering so she starts surging on me. At first I thought it was amusing. Then I realized that she was dropping me and that I could not even keep up at which point I blurted out, "Ma you better stop this running with me, because I could get DQ'd"....the reality was I pulled the rulebook on her to save me the embarrassment of being dropped by a 65 year old 100 lbs woman while I was fighting for a Kona slot. It can work both ways if you want to get rid of someone too!!!!

Now if Jimmy DQ'd me because I could not keep up with my 65 year old mother, well, OK that would have been a penalty worth taking, "Dev I had to DQ you because you sucked so badly that you can't keep up with your non athlete mother".

OK OK back to the thread. I can see the reason for the DQ based on the additional amplification from Jimmy. Makes sense. He should have been smart enough to tell his partner to go away and just have a latte at Starbucks and come back to the finish line
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haha, great story and loved meeting your mom!

The first time I did Kona, a (really good) friend came out and joined me. On race day coming out of the energy lab he was riding beside me on a bike (prolly informing me I was 89th place in age group, ha), and within like 10 sec. of this I told him "Dude, go on now, don't get me dq'ed."

So yeah to allow it despite warning and prior penalty...well not much you can say.


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How long till we see tactics employed by outside assistance.

Main KQ rival 2 mins ahead? Get a friend to ride along side them giving them time checks and offering them gels. ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Okay so the original story out of Denver has been updated (using the original link) to include the full story, including new video report, pic of wife on bike, and response by Jimmy Riccitello below:

On Friday, Jimmy Riccitello, head referee for all IRONMAN officials, provided Denver7 with the following account of why Smith was disqualified:

"Athlete Matt Smith was seen being assisted by a woman on a bicycle (not officially associated with IRONMAN), who provided him at least one item (chapstick) that he used during the event. He was cited for Unauthorized Assistance, and issued a stop-and-go yellow card penalty. During the 30-45 seconds that Mr. Smith was serving his penalty, he was informed of the reason for the penalty and told not to continue receiving outside assistance. Prior to this penalty, Mr. Smith was seen in the company of the female on a bike.
Subsequent to this instance, Mr. Smith was witnessed several more times, receiving Unauthorized Assistance from the same woman on a bicycle who was involved in the first situation.
Due to Mr. Smith’s initial Unauthorized Assistance rule violation combined with subsequent occurrences of Unauthorized Assistance, Mr. Smith was met at the finish line and notified of his disqualification.
Mr. Smith also had a conversation with the Head Referee at the awards ceremony, where the reasons for his disqualification were reiterated. It was emphasized to Mr. Smith that his disqualification was for the combination of violations subsequent to his first stop-and-go penalty, and not solely for his initial penalty for illegally receiving the chapstick."

FTR: I don't disagree with the ruling at all. I do however have a few questions.

1. Mr. Smith was witnessed several more times receiving Unauthorized Assistance. Why did the ref not give him another yellow card?
2. The athlete's guide states: While YELLOW CARD violations will not count against your three strikes, IRONMAN Competition Rules still allow an athlete to be disqualified for repeated rule violations should an athlete receive excessive yellow card violations. Was there excessive yellow card violations? How many = excessive?
3. Was there a record of each infraction? If not, would this be a subjective ref ruling and hold up to a protest?
4. Why in 2016 can we still not get a ref/penalty report with races?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As much energy as you have Dev it doesn't surprise me that your mother has the same, if not more, and was dropping you up the hill.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SAvan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SAvan wrote:
Agreed - chapstick may seem trivial, but a rule is a rule.

At least he accepted the ref's decision without whining about it on ST (as most STer's would do) and moved on. Great example to his athletes.
. Thats only if you believe that it was only Chopstick.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's the responsibility of the athlete to know the rules. In the story, Mr Smith was quoted as saying,
"I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good."

During my 2 IronMan marathons, I would have liked someone to give me something to " make me feel good." It is an individual sport. Prepare for the race, bring what you need, or do without.

Habitual line stepper.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [C Senor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Break the rules and get caught then you pay the price. I understand this every time I am going above the speed limit in my car or on my bike. If I am caught I have no issue paying the penalty.

Life really is petty simple when you follow the rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Taugen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Taugen wrote:
Not seeing how a kayak during the swim is an different from ChapStick on the run. Neither makes any forward progress. And yet the kayak actually aids the athlete in catching a breath or recovering heart rate. I don't see how ChapStick offers any benefit to race performance. A kayak can help a swimmer calm down, recover, and then move forward again in a faster manner or pace, yet I don't see that ChapStick has any performance benefit.

Then again, not trying to dwell on the whole ChapStick issue, as I know most will say it was the alleged pacing on the bike during the run that got him DQed. Personally, I really don't care, as I don't know the athlete, nor was I number 6 who just missed a slot because of his ChapStick or bike pacing.

There are people who when the answer is provided, and they don't like the answer, they double down on the question.

Once again, the difference, even though you can't see it, is simple. The rules say you CAN hang on a kayak as long as you don't advance your position. The rules say you CAN'T take outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [BMANX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BMANX wrote:
Break the rules and get caught then you pay the price. I understand this every time I am going above the speed limit in my car or on my bike. If I am caught I have no issue paying the penalty.

Life really is petty simple when you follow the rules.

That part in bold and underline was a really awesome backdoor brag assuming there is not a school zone everywhere you ride or a constant 5-10% downhill. Well played. This deserves ST post of the week!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Race1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Race1 wrote:
How long till we see tactics employed by outside assistance.

Main KQ rival 2 mins ahead? Get a friend to ride along side them giving them time checks and offering them gels. ;-)


This already happened to me. At the 2014 Ironman Louisville race a guy came up on the bike. He was scouting for someone. The guy was riding besides me and relaying information on a phone to someone else. I told him he could not ride besides me at which point he started to heckle me calling me a "dbag" and other nasties. I told the police at the next intersection crossing and they tried to stop the guy but he blew thru. They radioed ahead to the next officers and those officers physically stopped him. I was told by another STer who was at the race that the guy got in big trouble, I assume by the police. I never told Ironman about the incident.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Last edited by: Thomas Gerlach: Oct 4, 16 7:08
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [kny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.[/quote

yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.[/quote

yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened

Thomas, I love hearing your crazy, triathlon related stories.

Formerly DrD
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No backdoor brag. Not hard to go over 30km in a school zone, or go over 50km on a slight down hill. Hell even some of the hills in Vancouver you can go faster than 80km on a downhill. There is a hill on my way to work that if I hit the light right and get a bit of a draft, I can get over 80km while commuting to work.

Just the reality that is when you carry a lot of mass on a 5'10" frame. Now getting that mass up the hill going home sucks.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.

yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened

Ok, that is severely fucked up. Almost as fucked up as Cam Wurf getting a position violation at the SavageMan bike while leading the race by like 10 minutes. Seriously, USAT official? Seriously?

Did you ever hear what the USAT officials rationale was? Did she think you were the prior leader and that you had been getting outside assistance and you were being penalized when she thought it was the prior leader? Or because the biker was clearing you a path and she considered that outside assistance? Neither is your fault and obviously the USAT official should simply swallow her whistle, but at least in the former case it can be chalked up to an innocent mistake on her part.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [BMANX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BMANX wrote:
Break the rules and get caught then you pay the price. I understand this every time I am going above the speed limit in my car or on my bike. If I am caught I have no issue paying the penalty.

Life really is petty simple when you follow the rules.

To me this is typical of these types of situations. Dude gets busted 4-5 times for outside help but grabs the attention of everyone with the chapstick situation. I know someone just like this dude.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [3Aims] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yep we all do and I work with people like this
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Or why not just run with chapped lips??!!

You gotta be pretty tough to rise to the top of this sport. Dry lips is way down the list of things to get (illegal) assistance for

That's part of what I don't get. Of all the discomfort, in all the parts of your body, that one feels during an IM, I'm surprised the thought of having chapped lips was even on his mental radar.

Long Chile was a silly place.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
stevej wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.

Have you seen all the threads on drafting recently? Or all the threads after every single IM brazil and florida about drafting?

You do know there is a such thing as legal drafting? It is completely within the rules and what you are probably referring to.

Nope, and please don't assume you know what I am referring to. I am referring to ILLEGAL drafting, not 10m out (or 12), not slingshotting during a legal pass, none of that. I'm referring to the peletons of 20+ blatantly sitting on wheels that are becoming the norm and that so many people just shrug and say "what can you do?" about, yet chapstick???!?!?!?!?!? "Now THAT. THAT is just TOO much!".

Classic ST moral relativism.

Im guilty of it too, but, FFS, chapstick? Of all the things to take a stand on the rules being rules, chapstick is about the worst Ive ever heard

Ok show me where on this forum someone said it was acceptable to blantantly draft (illegally) and not one person interjected in.

I'm with you that it's a bit much it being chapstick, but where do you draw the line? Like my other post stated, this just leads to more and more things. Oh it's just a gel.... 1 gel isn't going to give him and advantage......

Go reread the same posts about drafting you referred to.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [zeusrun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zeusrun wrote:
It's the responsibility of the athlete to know the rules. In the story, Mr Smith was quoted as saying,
"I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good."

During my 2 IronMan marathons, I would have liked someone to give me something to " make me feel good." It is an individual sport. Prepare for the race, bring what you need, or do without.

"Something that makes you feel good" is not a good metric to decide if something is legal or not. My wife gets a boost when people cheer for her.. to the point she said she wouldn't have finished some of her tougher races without the crowd support she recieved. Obviously you don't get that boost, so should it be illegal for people to cheer for my wife?

Things that provide an unfair advantage is a better metric, IMO. Along those lines, I don't think I've ever heard of someone pulling out of a race because their lips were chapped, or that unchapped lips provide an aero advantage, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
zeusrun wrote:
It's the responsibility of the athlete to know the rules. In the story, Mr Smith was quoted as saying,
"I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good."

During my 2 IronMan marathons, I would have liked someone to give me something to " make me feel good." It is an individual sport. Prepare for the race, bring what you need, or do without.


"Something that makes you feel good" is not a good metric to decide if something is legal or not. My wife gets a boost when people cheer for her.. to the point she said she wouldn't have finished some of her tougher races without the crowd support she recieved. Obviously you don't get that boost, so should it be illegal for people to cheer for my wife?

Things that provide an unfair advantage is a better metric, IMO. Along those lines, I don't think I've ever heard of someone pulling out of a race because their lips were chapped, or that unchapped lips provide an aero advantage, etc.

From Smith's mouth from the linked article: " "My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

He obviously thought it was helping him, that's the reason for the super secret spy drop. I'd say helping someone is a good metric
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [3Aims] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have yet to see this athlete/coach chime in on this string, but am hoping both he AND HIS CLIENTS are watching closely as a perfect example of what NOT TO DO when you are caught repeatedly violating the rules and disqualified as a result.

Not only did he know he was disqualified for much more than simply "chapstick", but he seemed perfectly happy to participate in that news clip (which has since gone nationwide) suggesting it was only chapstick.

He was caught, he was warned, and he was caught again. Finally, he was disqualified. And rightfully so.

My training buddy and I last night read the on-line posts over beers on this topic and drank every time someone said “impressive athlete/good job for taking the high road, so proud of your integrity (we drank twice for positive integrity comments), upstanding man, straight shooter, hope my kids grow up like you†and so on. What a deceptive #$%*! (would make a sailor blush)

So what happens next? He may not have argued with the refs at the finish line, but, he did something even worse - he participated in a lie that made the refs look bad, the sport look bad, and required an official response from Ironman basically saying this guy is lying in a very diplomatic way. More people who do not know a thing about this sport/IM triathlon have heard this story and thanks to this guy has intentionally given them an inaccurate view. A horrible view.

Nice job Coach! You may teach your clients not to argue with refs, but, what are you teaching them with this fiasco!!!??? I'd love to hear your response! Or maybe you can contact that news team again and have them do another story for you!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This story shows everyone how entitled some triathletes behave! He broke the rules.. The rules are the rules and this is NOT just about him using chap-stick courtesy of his wife. This is about him getting ASSISTANCE during the race on more than one occasion! Hello people....I read on FB that people were applauding him, saying he is a 'class act' coach. Really???!! He would not be my coach. He clearly lacks integrity. This was probably a publicity stunt to draw attention to himself.

I believe many triathletes (seems like it is more with IM distance) act as if they are entitled to everything. The rest of the world does not live like this guy. He rides what appears to be a very expensive bike and other gear (maybe has sponsors), drops a chunk of money on IM race entries, hotel/travel expenses is another chunk of change and then goes and cheats at the race (and gets caught). Boohoo he says.....

I say he got what he deserved.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Kat_Kong] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah. It's hard to know what this guy's entire deal is. It almost seems he's a little too casual about being DQ'ed.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


#chapsticklivesmatter



"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slow news day in denver? how does this even end up on the news in the first place...
alex
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Race1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Race1 wrote:
How long till we see tactics employed by outside assistance.

Main KQ rival 2 mins ahead? Get a friend to ride along side them giving them time checks and offering them gels. ;-)

While wearing custom shirts with their names. Nailed it

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Kat_Kong] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.

Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Afleet Alex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Afleet Alex wrote:
slow news day in denver? how does this even end up on the news in the first place...
alex

He called the reporter

I could be wrong but it looks to me like the classic "get ahead of the story" move.

He's a coach and knew word would get around that he was DQ'd for outside assistance. So, go to the paper and try to make the story about 1. Chapstick and 2. How nice he is to accept the penalty without complaint - which is itself a bit of a stretch since accepting a penalty without complaint doesn't usually include talking about it the next day with the head official and then calling a reporter.

There were a dozen or so people who got penalties at that race and accepted them, they didn't talk to anyone about how supposedly honorable they were to not complain or argue, they just took the penalty and went on their way.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [B.McMaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B.McMaster wrote:
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.


Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.
Where did it say anything about him drafting?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisM wrote:

From Smith's mouth from the linked article: " "My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

He obviously thought it was helping him, that's the reason for the super secret spy drop. I'd say helping someone is a good metric

Translation:

I clearly know what the rules are, but was in fact trying my best to work around them and get what I wanted and was hoping I could get away with it or nobody noticed.


Reality check, at the front of the race, everyone is paying attention, and no body likes someone that thinks they are somehow above the rules.

Bottom line, it's really simple, you carry everything you want with you or at special needs. Or you get it at an aide station from a volunteer. End of story. Second, friends, family, coaches can't follow you around. They can cheer and go from point to point and yell updates fro ma fixed spot. You can stop and talk if needed, but they can't run or ride along side.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

Haha, it's almost like 5 pages of discussion don't even exist!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Obviously he should've had her smear chapstick on herself and gone for the kiss...

yea, and then the lip lock would be ruled outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

You really need to read the whole thread...

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ha ha. This made me laugh much harder than it should have.

Don't drown. Don't crash. Don't walk.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [T-wrecks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
T-wrecks wrote:
B.McMaster wrote:
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.


Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.

Where did it say anything about him drafting?

It didn't and neither did I.

I simply suggested that his customers probably cheat as well. I'd also bet at least a few of them (probably the ones that don't fire him) tend to push the limits on legal/non-legal drafting.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick

Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow


Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

It was Cherry Chapstick ... she was making out with Julie Miller

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [B.McMaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B.McMaster wrote:
T-wrecks wrote:
B.McMaster wrote:
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.


Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.

Where did it say anything about him drafting?


It didn't and neither did I.

I simply suggested that his customers probably cheat as well. I'd also bet at least a few of them (probably the ones that don't fire him) tend to push the limits on legal/non-legal drafting.
Based on.....
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow


Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

Well, you've been dinged twice and now I'm piling on. In this case we can say you shouldn't judge a book by the cover; or a thread by the title. You have some catch-up reading to do.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [HuffNPuff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
HuffNPuff wrote:
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow


Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.


Well, you've been dinged twice and now I'm piling on. In this case we can say you shouldn't judge a book by the cover; or a thread by the title. You have some catch-up reading to do.

I hate when you guys make me actually do work/read....damn you.

Oh I see said the blind man.......

carry on.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I grabbed my wife's chapstick coming out of T2 at my last race. The cold water on the swim and the dry air on the descents during the bike had left them cracked. I also stole a kiss from her. Would the chapstick be strike one and the kiss strike two?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [petermck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
petermck wrote:
Would the chapstick be strike one and the kiss strike two?

That depends, did you end up getting on base?

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This brings to mind a little bit of character I showed last year at IM Boulder resisting outside aid. Off topic, but I've always thought it worth telling.

After completing the two 42 mile loops, I was heading west on the Diagonal. I was not having a great ride, some stomach troubles and the heat combined to have me in the pain cave as I pedaled along the busy highway. At that moment, my neighbor pulled alongside and asked if I wanted to "sit in for a bit". Now this guy is not just any old rider - he has won multiple national titles as a junior for TT and road racing and would have happily towed me to a PR. While I knew it was impossible for any number of reasons - waving him off was as hard as a reformed alcoholic turning down a cold beer on a hot day.

Racing around friends and family is tough for that reason -on the run later I passed a dozen friends mostly camped out with coolers who would have happily (and innocently) offered cold drinks, sunscreen, or a snack if I had wavered just a bit. I did manage to game the system just a bit however... my wife was working one of the aid stations so I pull over for a minute to get a proper, loving sunscreen refresh and a kiss.

" I take my gear out of my car and put my bike together. Tourists and locals are watching from sidewalk cafes. Non-racers. The emptiness of of their lives shocks me. "
(opening lines from Tim Krabbe's The Rider , 1978
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [TriDevilDog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
with all this kissing going on at races, It's amazing anybody has time to race.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [kny] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kny wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.


yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened


Ok, that is severely fucked up. Almost as fucked up as Cam Wurf getting a position violation at the SavageMan bike while leading the race by like 10 minutes. Seriously, USAT official? Seriously?

Did you ever hear what the USAT officials rationale was? Did she think you were the prior leader and that you had been getting outside assistance and you were being penalized when she thought it was the prior leader? Or because the biker was clearing you a path and she considered that outside assistance? Neither is your fault and obviously the USAT official should simply swallow her whistle, but at least in the former case it can be chalked up to an innocent mistake on her part.

The story actually goes a lot deeper. I left out a few details. For one, the guy who, was in a yellow vest, was not actually part of the race. He was I heard the director of the Atlantic City Marathon or something like that, but he wasn't actually part of the race. With that being said, the police were supposed to be stopping any bikers who were not part of the race on the boardwalk. So if he wasn't part of the race he was supposed to be removed by the police.

That guy had been with me before earlier in the run from the very start of the run, I was second off the bike, but when Freddie, the eventually winner passed me, the guy went with Freddie. Typical lead person behavior. I was in 3rd then. Freddie then passed the original first place guy and took over the lead vehicles on the run, like a cop on motorcycle. Then Chris had the guy, then when I passed Chris, I picked him back up. This was a first year race so first year understandings was lacking as usual.

It was a dark day for me. I ended up talking to the head USAT official for about 2 hours. During that time she told me how she was about to sell her IT company for 7+ figures that upcoming week. It was great to hear that from an official when I just lost out on my biggest payday ever. I had to bite my tongue, and in the end, I had/choose to apologize to the official who gave me the penalty and swallow my pride.

I called Jordan on the way home and explained the situation. He encouraged me to file an official complaint with USAT and see it thru. But frankly, that was when many pros were not getting paid for races, and I didn't want to rock the boat as I was still get like $3-$4 if I recall.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [RandMart] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RandMart wrote:
petermck wrote:
Would the chapstick be strike one and the kiss strike two?


That depends, did you end up getting on base?

Susie Chapstick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7DHWG7wsY
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TrekRider68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can someone explain to me why pacing someone is illegal when everyone has a gps watch to see their pace?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [KingMidas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
KingMidas wrote:
Can someone explain to me why pacing someone is illegal when everyone has a gps watch to see their pace?

Can you imagine an Ironman race with 2500 EXTRA people on the run/bike course pacing people?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [KingMidas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
KingMidas wrote:
Can someone explain to me why pacing someone is illegal when everyone has a gps watch to see their pace?

Besides the crowd issue, a GPS watch is about as motivational as a cup of sand in the hot desert. Unless you have a meaningful relationship with your watch, it is neither motivational, nor the same form of accountability as you have with a real person pacing you.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [HuffNPuff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
HuffNPuff wrote:
KingMidas wrote:
Can someone explain to me why pacing someone is illegal when everyone has a gps watch to see their pace?


Besides the crowd issue, a GPS watch is about as motivational as a cup of sand in the hot desert. Unless you have a meaningful relationship with your watch, it is neither motivational, nor the same form of accountability as you have with a real person pacing you.

Haha great metaphor and I agree completely. People who see watches as being analogous to pacers must be crushing 100% of their workouts done with said devices. Never a lack of motivation eh!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [TriDevilDog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriDevilDog wrote:
Racing around friends and family is tough for that reason -on the run later I passed a dozen friends mostly camped out with coolers who would have happily (and innocently) offered cold drinks, sunscreen, or a snack if I had wavered just a bit. I did manage to game the system just a bit however... my wife was working one of the aid stations so I pull over for a minute to get a proper, loving sunscreen refresh and a kiss.

I run into that problem when my parents show up to races, too. They really don't get the idea that outside help is not allowed. On the run at Savageman 70 last year, I faded hard. My dad met me about a mile from the end and said he wanted to pace me in. I was nowhere near the front, but I still told him no. I had a similar situation at a trail race this year. It was over 90F with high winds and no shade, and there was a steep hike up to the one aid station where we were allowed to take outside help. I had been out of water for a couple miles and was starting to stumble from dehydration, and my mom tried to hand me a water bottle at the bottom of the hill. I have never had such a hard time saying no to anything in my life, but I made it to the top of the hill before accepting any water.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [snaaijert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
snaaijert wrote:
HuffNPuff wrote:
KingMidas wrote:
Can someone explain to me why pacing someone is illegal when everyone has a gps watch to see their pace?


Besides the crowd issue, a GPS watch is about as motivational as a cup of sand in the hot desert. Unless you have a meaningful relationship with your watch, it is neither motivational, nor the same form of accountability as you have with a real person pacing you.

Haha great metaphor and I agree completely. People who see watches as being analogous to pacers must be crushing 100% of their workouts done with said devices. Never a lack of motivation eh!

I see. Thanks
Quote Reply