I get what you mean. At the same time, it seems like the nations with three strong racers can then have an advantage over nations with one superstar if they play their domestiques properly. Nobody seems to do that, but eventually they'll figure it out

I don't think they'll figure it out. Or shall I say, I think other athletes will simply take advantage of that other federation domestique action as well. IE what Henri Schoeman did last year in Rio. He basically got bronze because of the big gap that an Brits domestique "created" when he sat in on the chase group.

Very rarely is it where 1 federation alone can take advantage of an "domestique", where what really happens is a group in the front is aided; and in most cases that is like likely a half a dozen countries then benefitted from said domestique.

I also don't really know what your suggesting as alternative? Max of 2 athletes per federation? 1 athlete per federation?

---

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

What is sad is I could complete that in 79 mins.

In the individual races you are obviously meaning? GB have been very obvious in using domestiques, The difficulty is that sometimes the superstars are exactly that, superstars, the domestiques can't keep up so are no help. A country with a gun runner should use domestiques to try to ensure they are up the front of the race before the run if they are serious about medals, but few do.

I guess this is probably a case of me enjoying watching ITU but not knowing much about tactics. I would think 2 per team, especially now with the MTR format. The Brownlee's having a domestique in addition to each other is a perfect example of how them having three athletes is a huge advantage.

One example of a nation that could utilize domestiques far better is Spain IMO. Having a strong swim/biker to help Mola would be huge for him. I've been watching event replays from the last year or so and they are constantly talking about how he is doing the work in the chase pack on the bike. If he could have someone bury themselves for him on the bike so he has more to unleash on the run, that would be huge. Just my thoughts at least. Hope this makes sense, I'm writing this at the same time as I'm writing another paper and my thoughts are a little jumbled up.

Australia would also be smart to use domestiques as they have gun runners in both female and male races who don't always make front pack out of the water, but when they do or the packs come together, they appear to be ending up on the podium.

My point more was the Brownlees aren't the only one that benefit from an brownlee domestique. Would be the same thing for your spanish example. You know who would benefit greatly from a mola domestique? His now former best training partner and S. African, Richard Murray who is the "leader" of the chase pack for a number of years now. So my point is, domestiques aren't really federation exclusive benefits. If you are smart and most of these athletes are, they understand how a domestique will play out. I think in Rio most knew the Brit was going to be there to "sit in" on the chase group and in London domestique was there I believe as front pack aid, but in fact I dont think he made the select front group in London during the actual race.

---

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

Strongly disagree... It's not like these domestiques grow on trees... In order to be useful, they need to be strong, competitive triathletes... I'd suspect to domestique for the Brownlees you'd still need to be top 20/30 in the world... It's not like when people first started using domestiques (Colin Jenkins, swim/biking for Simon Whitfield), where they can benefit countries to the same extent. Yes it means sometimes a country might select a strong swim/biker over a slightly stronger more complete athlete, who is a bit weaker in the swim or bike, depending on the skillset of their strongest athlete, but with the way that packs work, it's not like the benefits are only on a given nation. Essentially what happens now is trying to change the dynamic of the race... Key example will be the women's race, it would be smart if several countries made a deal under the table to each put one uber biker domestique in the chase pack to try and close down Duffy on the bike, and deliver the Andrea Hewitts and Ashleigh Gentles within a hope and a prayer of bridging the gap on the run... But it's also no guarantee (look at the number of times the brits screwed the pooch trying to use Lucy Hall/Sophie Coldwell/Jessica Learmonth to help the Stanford/Holland/Stimpson and missed out on results altogether... they started to get better results by letting their swim stars off the leash, and race with Duffy for a shot at the podium, and have the others sit on in the chase packs, and save their legs so that they could go for the win, if the pack closed the gap enough...)...

The idea of uniform team sizes are ludicrous when you look at the continental breakdowns for spots, and you realize that capping teams at two means leaving athletes like (all but two of) Hall/Stanford/Holland/Learmonth/Stimpson/Coldwell, Zaferes/Cook/Spivey/Kasper, Gomez/Mola/Alarza, McShane/Gentle/Jackson/Jeffcoat or Tom Bishop behind that are all legit threats under the right courses for top 10 if not podium results on the WTS, but then give a country like Kenya or Syria two spots which are both going to get lapped out on the bike...

Well somehow ITU snuck one passed me and released the qualification procedures for Tokyo. It is pretty straight forward actually. Here are my bullet points:
-relay like looks to be only 10 teams, 7 from rankings and 3 from a last minute qualification race
-individual spots are basically all from the points list
-if your NOC wants 3 spots, all you need are 3 athletes ranked in top 30
-this will lead to a de facto reduction in teams with 3 I think
-spots are still awarded to NOCs and not specific athletes

I am actually a little fuzzy if the will cap entries for the relay at 10 teams or if they will allow entries from any NOC who has otherwise qualified athletes for the games. I could see this going either way.

just had a look, am I reading it right? very confused.
the top 7 nations on the relay ranking each get 2 spots per gender for their federation in the individual race, this is first priority for individual selection ? the individual rankings mean nothing at this stage as long as the athletes are eligible for nomination, ie: top 140.
The other teams race off for the next 3 relay spots.
after these 20 athletes per gender are allocated then the individual rankings come into play. 26 individuals spots will then be allocated from the rankings list... but this is where I am not sure what this means...NOCs that have already qualified quota places via the ITU Mixed Relay Olympic Qualification Ranking, the ITU Mixed Relay Olympic Qualification Event or Host Nation will not be considered with their two (2) highest ranked athletes for this list. What does this mean?? surely it doesn't mean that each country can only have 2 ppl per gender.

That means the individual list roles down. But the countries with 3 athletes in the top 30 can have a 3rd athlete. In the past there were 8 countries who would be able to qualify 3 athletes. After which 2 athletes was the maximum. So as an example, in Rio Canadian women had 3 spots but only after the 3rd spot rolled down to the position of Amilie Kretz at #63! So again using the 2016 list as an example only USA, Aus, GB, and Japan would be eligible for 3 spots in the individual race. Fighting for 3 spots will be crazy important this Olympiad.

Ok, so you are saying there will probably be 3 spots for 4 countries only?

If I had to guess right now I would say between 3-6. But that can all change depending on how federations choose to chase points. But with the continental champions no longer getting spots that removes one major “loophole.” I think qualifying will be much more straight forward this time around.