good post
"
work together to clearly gain an ultimate advantage for an individual"
the thing is the athletes do not really gain an advantage . Or more precise
don't gain more advantage than any other athlete, can legally avail of, if they are in in a pack or paceline.
the reality in tri is, if you swim and/or cycle alone, you are more likely than not, at an
disatvantage against the majority of the atheles you compete against in a sport that is supposed to be individual.
comming back to the individual
individual is a time trial where everybody is on its own
ironman is a sport that is individual but people can use other people to work of ( given its 3 differtn sports and very few athetes are really balcanced in all 3 ,its not always the best individual that wins. often we see that the best runner do no work on the bike to save energy and its likely that those people would not get the same results if it was a proper tt )
team sport is a sport with domestiques and a team member plays a role in a team and gets payed for playing this rule in a team. ( the whole team qualifies for an event not an individual )
I guess most people would consider runing an individual sport but pacer are allowed.
JayPeeWhy wrote:
The whole individual vs team things often gets dragged up.
I think when addressing whether a sport is individual you might have to look at the alternative, which would be a team sport. In my opinion there is nothing in between. Either everyone wants to win themselves, or there is a willingness for some to lay down their performance on behalf of a greater good. What happens in between in the pursuit of one of those two options does not grey the area, it's the intended outcome that defines.
Regardless of whether swim drafting is legal or not the leading athletes should all be wanting to beat those drafting. If everyone wants to win the sport is clearly individual, if two or more people
work together to clearly gain an ultimate advantage for an individual then they are acting as a team.
However, if tactics come into play whereby aiding someone at the start
in order that this benefits you later on then this is still clearly an individual pursuit. If you can convince other people to help you win [within the rules] then fair play to you.
Cases in point.
1.
Domestiques clearly form part of a team. They forego their chances, to aid another. They are in a team.
2.
Macca at Kona. He put forward the idea of a way of racing that he felt absolutely benefitted him and would allow him the best chance of winning. By telling people to ride hard it was not a team effort, everyone would have happily seen every other athlete blow up. It was within the rules. He absolutely wanted to win. Everyone else absolutely wanted to win. It was an individual decision in an individual sport. He was acting utterly individually, with his own beneficial outcome in mind.
I agree that there is a difference between time trial races and pack races, but the lack of time trial format and the subsequent race dynamics does not a team sport make. Andy Potts does not work the front of the swim for the ultimate benefit of anyone else. Whether Chrabot did or not would dictate whether this became a team act or was an individual act, which I think is key when establishing whether [rules or no rules] this was in the spirit of the sport.
Dan underlines an 'abandoned ambitions' ruling. I read Matt's initial post which clearly indicated he had abandoned ambitions to win prior to the race ("How ambitious can I get if I just want to do the honor of finishing Kona while still sore and tired?") and also clearly indicated that he would assist Lionel if, at least, it was just to keep him straight in the swim ("yeah, sure. It'll be good for you since I'll swim straighter anyways")
Ambitions abandoned, yep. Athlete assisted? Arguable based on that quote alone. Matt indicated it would benefit but didn't indicate he would be doing anything different to what he intended to do anyway.
All just my opinion obviously. I am not sure there was any particular intention to break rules but, clearly, checking with the ref to see if it was legal to 'swim next to someone' meant that they knew they were doing something a bit cheeky.