The company is run by white, wealthy men. This is fact.


So are the majority of athletes.

Tell that to the F40-44 competitor at any qualifier that is chasing top 2 in her AG vs. her male counterpart that only needs be top 6.


But what if the F40-44 has 20 competitors and the M40-44 has 300?

I have been following this sport since the early 80s. While I appreciate the pros and their efforts to make a living in the sport, I don't think they have a lot of impact on the sport. I have friends who have been in the sport for decades. We talk about racing, race venues, race distances, bikes, swimming, running, equipment and our aches and pains, but we never discuss pro triathletes. It isn't that we devalue them, their abilities or their accomplishments, they just do not factor in to why we enjoy the sport. We sign up for races without any discussion of which pros might be doing the event. We do the races and often times don't even know which pro won the event until days later. I think 25/25 would be a good number. I doubt few triathletes could come close to naming 25 pro triathletes, men or women.

Do you really think the pros are advertisements to attract AG'ers?

Go to an Ironman branded race and poll 100 random AG'ers and ask them two questions:

1) Did today's professional field have any impact on your decision to race today?

If you got one response of "Yes" I'd be absolutely astonished.

2) Did the presence of the professional triathlete have any influence on you starting the sport?

That will have more of a mixed response. Folks that have been around the sport for 20 years probably were more influenced by the professionals than the current crop of newcomers... because at one point pros did actually matter to the sport. You will also have some folks that were inspired by the Kona broadcast but probably more about the human interest stories than the professionals. All that said, the vast majority of people in the sport were introduced to it by a friend, co-worker, or family member. You are way overestimating the professional's sphere of influence... which is probably a sphere the size of a ping pong ball.

I 100% disagree with your first paragraph. I do agree with your second paragraph but you don't need pros to do that.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Here is the Texas 70.3 this past weekend.

F40-44 129 finishers
M40-44 311 finishers

So the 6 to 2 (or 3 to 1 which is how the 70.3 slots shook out for that race if memory serves) ratio is pretty spot on, and probably pretty spot on for IM races as a whole. So proportionally speaking the top 6 for M40-44 is pretty equivalent to top 2 for F40-44.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I tend to agree. It's not as bad as it is in cycling, though. I have an upcoming local crit where the prize purse for the women's Pro-1-2 field is $500. The prize purse for the men's Cat 3/4 field is $1000. Figure that out.

Exactly my point....I don't really believe that anyone is arguing against the proportionality system for AG slots. So I really didn't see how it was any different for pros.

But, I'm starting to see some logic in the Pro WC argument. That if this is a true WC, an equal number of pro men and women should be represented. But, following that logic, I also think that it should be a number less than 50 to properly differentiate the WC pros from the amateurs. At this point, though, nobody would be happy if WTC were to propose an equal 25 / 25 pro slots. Even if it really would improve the quality of the World Championship (and probably be healthy for the pros that realistically won't finish top 5 and as Rappstar points out are making a bad investment.)

Exactly, and in fact KNY has posted that often the worst overall ratios are for M30-49.

If there are 8 slots for M40-44 with 400 entrants in an IM, and there 2 slots for F40-44 with 100 entrants, then the ratio is the same.

I once heard someone argue that it was harder for women as getting top 1-2 is tougher than 8th in a larger field, as there were often 1 or 2 "ringers" that would make it more difficult to get a top spot, but it is simple math here. Just take the 400, divide by 4, and each one of those groups will also have 1-2 super fast "ringers".

Qualifying is tough for *most* of us. It's hard for men and women in 30-49 for sure (not commenting on the other groups, don't know the data), but I completely disagree that it' harder for the women in the current set up

---

Founder of THE TRIATHLON COLLECTIVE (Closed Facebook Group). A SBR discussion group without the white noise/trolling!

Part of the problem with WTC's stance on proportional slots is that it really isn't proportional and there is no logically laid out plan and math on how to arrive at the current numbers and how that can change in the future.

One easy solution is to lay out a plan like the following:

1. For men and women, the top 20 go to Kona. (twice as deep as the money, equal and fair)
2. Additionally 1 slot will be given to each field for every 50 Pros in the KPR above 100 points up to a maximum of 30 additional slots. (made up numbers to convey the idea)

Something along these lines lay out how WTC arrives at the current slot allocation and lays out a way for a higher number of women to be able to race in Kona.

This however does not fix the justifiable gripe that in the past the women have had to race more often to get sufficient points to qualify, but I see this more as a problem with how the KPR has been structured vs number of slots. Hopefully the changes toward rewarding higher performances in championship races will change that. If not, then further KPR changes are in order so that anyone who podiums in a championship race is qualified.

I've read a bunch of these threads and even posted in one further back in the year. Since then I've changed my stance on "proportional slots" because it's too immediate, which i think is Dan's point with AG women asking for equality in the future. It's coming so prepare now.... Proportional works now but if we are looking down the road to a day when Triathlon has grown into a more mainstream sport I think the proportions will even out.

Now that I've said that I think I'd be more happy to see a true "World Championship" race. One of the things that I find odd is how there is no representation of countries. I know it's radical to think due to the nature of the sport at the long distance level but why not do allocation based on country of origin and then allocate slots to each of the federations involved. Gender becomes irrelevant and the policies align with how the rest of the "World Championships" in sport go. There are enough events in enough places to do this fairly with.

Again I'm just thinking out loud here but if there is to be legitimacy to the race as a TRUE world championship and not a self appointed one via tradition. I know there are issues with federations and long distance but it's not something that couldn't be worked out quickly by following a pre-existing model that's worked for decades.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

You don't think that pros are used to attract AGs? Who gets half the media coverage at Kona?
Open any triathlon magazine and any website and tell me who is in the ads. I see Potts, Crowie, Rinnie, Macca. Mentioned by name, too. If you happen to see a non-pro, they look like a pro and their real name isn't mentioned. So yeah, not only do companies think of them as ads, they are ads to get people to buy whatever. Basically every spot is used on their kit, bike, and sometimes car for ads. They aren't just part of the ad, the ad is built around them with the font and the lettering fit around their faces. They are paid to race in X company's gear and X company's races with appearance fees. Maybe some AGs don't know who they are, but enough do and enough spend enough money based on their pro image for it make a huge difference.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

I simply cannot agree. I have no ego and I'm quite confident that I am not sexist.

Here's where Kona sits today:

1. Women race the same course as Men.
2. Women earn the same prize money as Men.
3. 14% of women pros qualify to race in Kona with 35 slots. 11% of male pros do with 50 slots.

I feel this is fair and equitable. However, according to you, jackmott, and texafornia, anyone who believes this is sexist. End of argument.

I've organized a cycling road race. The women P/1/2 field raced 40 miles (2 laps), while the male P/1/2 field raced 56 miles (3 laps). The women earned less prize money. The women's field was smaller and less competitive. No one called me sexist, although the argument for this claim is much stronger.

The valid argument I see for equal numbers is that it is a World Championship. For that argument to be valid, the field needs to be limited to the true creme de la creme. So, no more than 25 per. I would get behind that. But, to demand 50/50 means you are demanding 20% of all women pros be permitted to participate (vs 11% of all male pros), which is hardly World Championship caliber.

In the WTC's flawed version of proportional distribution for AG slots, 10 slots to be distributed across 2 AGs with 400 and 100 entrants would actually go 7 and 3, rather than the proportionally correct 8 and 2. So, this is an illustration of how the smaller AGs actually have it "easier" to qualify from a purely mathematical standpoint.

You don't think that pros are used to attract AGs? Who gets half the media coverage at Kona?


I think the pros in the media coverage would attract sponsors. Spectators would almost all go to watch a significant other and not because of a pro. I also don't know a single AG'er who enters a race because of a pro's presence.


I think the media coverage of a pro is designed for television and sponsors so in that sense can impact people who may start out in triathlons. I started because of the coverage on Wide World of Sports. However, a decision to race at a certain venue or enter any race at all had nothing to do with pros. In every race I've ever entered, I had no clue who was there prior to starting and honestly really didn't care. I wouldn't see them anyway. :)

Well, no, start of the argument, really. :)




I think I did point that sexism is far more ingrained in cycling than triathlon. There's no reason for women not to race just as far, other than possibly running into time issues from taking a bit longer from going a few MPH slower. Women run marathons (though that was quite a battle in its day). There are various rationale given for smaller prize purses in cycling, most of which have to do with treating each race as its own market. The more people who show up, the more prize money there is for the category. However that rationale usually fails when considering the outsized men's P12 purse vs. a men's Cat 4 purse - when those fields can be about the same size.




It doesn't "need" to be. It'd just be consistent with most World Championship events in other sports where qualifications are highly regulated.


But back to the proportionality argument. This was the same argument given to fight Title IX quality rules in NCAA sports. "There just aren't that many women in athletics. We don't need to build them their own locker rooms. Don't need to allocate them as much money because there are fewer." Then Title IX came along. And guess what, women's sports in the NCAA exploded, and now ~43$% of student-athletes are women.

The question comes down to whether the policy should be accommodation or leadership. I see it as leadership. You construct policy largely around a vision of what you want the sport to be. Not to accommodate existing inequities in numbers.

I'm fine with taking action to cause increase in women's participation in triathlon. Adding 15 pro slots at Kona does not do this. Perhaps adding 700 slots to AGers at Kona might. Or, charging entry fees that are 50% less than for males. I'd be up for anything to increase female participation, but I really do not think that is what this 50/50 movement is about.

Also, fwiw, I gave women free entry to the cycling road race I organized in an effort to increase participation. I still had them race a shorter race and earn less prize money, but I did attempt to get more women to participate.

Title IX is based on proportionality though, and as you point out still was a great success and cited as a statement of equality.

I’ll attempt to keep this brief as I don’t want to spend too much time writing something that six people will end up reading and have zero effect on any of them. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my life it’s that people don’t change positions, they simply find new ways to maintain them.

First of all – there should be an equal number of men and women represented at the world championships. That should be obvious and any attempt to rationalize an alternative position is ridiculous.

But many attempts are being made none the less and against my better judgment I’m going to weigh in.

I’ve had exchanges with Slowman in the past and have always found him to be fair and balanced but just because he states that those in favour of equality need to address the issue of inequality within the AG ranks first does not make it so. It’s not exactly a strawman but it’s a close cousin. Why should they? The two races are separate entities with different variable and issues. I don’t see why any of the people spearheading the movement for equality in the pro ranks should feel the need to address this – having said that, I’ve read several blogs that do – eloquently and succinctly – one by Thorsten Radde, and one by Sara Gross (full disclosure – my wife). I’d wager that if I dug a little deeper I’d find more dialogue on this as well.

Slowman also states that the level of the dialogue has been uncivil but only on one side. Civility is the privilege of those in power. I could site many examples of this but anyone with a brain has already thought of at least three.
Having said that – if you check out the official Women For Tri Facebook page you won’t find any comments about this issue – why? They’ve been deleted – censored – even the polite ones. There is nothing as uncivilized as censorship. When you feel the need to silence the voices of your opposition, then it’s quite likely you’re on the wrong side of the issue.
Further I’ve seen screenshots of some shockingly ugly statements made by one of the board members of that group aimed at Kathryn Bertine, in response to her wonderful article in Triathlete. Her efforts to promote women in cycling and triathlon are tireless and beyond reproach.
So to suggest that only one side has been uncivilized is to be willfully blind.

Jordan suggests that if they let in 500 men and 300 women we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I tend to think he’s right – but it would still be wrong.
50/50 or 20/20 – different issue. Equality first.

I know and like Andrew Messick. I’ve broken bread and drank more than I should have with him. I know he’s a fan of the sport and I will be the first to say I think he’s been a strong CEO for the organization, but he is wrong here.

w/ apologies for the length.

Clint Lien

also, he can only base that on last season when there were more qualifying races
I understand that pros were picking and choosing races where they had a better chance of points because of a smaller pro field

That isn't the case this season with the reduction of points giving races, there should be a higher number of pro's per race.

---

-

http://www.thetrinerd.com

No, I don't believe it is.

It's a logical fallacy and it does a great disservice to the importance and value of professional triathlon. Pro racing and AG racing is not the same.

Dan said he supports gay marriage. Why isn't he afraid gay marriage will lead to polygamy, incest, and bestiality?

For the record, Dan, defending sexist policy is not in any way, shape, or form civility. Demeanor and civility are not the same thing.

Repeatedly asking for a response to a slippery slope argument is not logical. It is, by definition, not a logical question. Why would an answer be necessary? TriEqual isn't obligated to respond to every instance of sexism or gender inequality in the world. They are allowed to choose their own battles. You don't get to choose their battles for them.

I realize you think everything you're saying is logical and civil. Keep in mind, however, that you're not always correct. Think about the recent backlash you've gotten for a number of your comments. It's not wise to simply write that off without any introspection.

You and others state as fact that those of us who believe proportional representation is fair are egotistic and defending sexist policy. And, I take offense to that.

It is rare that I agree with Dan in debates on this forum, but this is one case in which I do.

I am against sex discrimination. The professional women are not currently being discriminated against. They race the same distance. They get the same prize purse. And they currently have greater proportional representation than males at Kona, at 14% of their population vs 11% for males. The 50/50 equity folks want it to become 20% vs 11%. I call this sexual discrimination against males.

I look at the two pools as Set A and Set B, not male and female, just as I look at resumes as Applicant A and Applicant B, not gender, race, age, etc.... And, based on the numbers and the relative performance depth, it is clear that Set A and Set B are different. If the goal is to make Set A and Set B more equivalent, then there are ways that WTC can go about that, but pretending the two sets are equal via 50/50 at Kona does little to make the two Sets actually the same.

Again, if the argument for numeric equity is that it is the WC, then I agree. But, only if it really is a WC caliber event, which means allowing only the true best of the best to participate, which means far less than 20% of the total population.

Dan - it's interesting to read your comments regarding the argument. When I have listened to interviews given by TriEqual representatives, I feel like the way they are presenting their case is not going to assist in gathering the support of age groupers. Each time I hear them interviewed they raise the issues of interference in the female pro race by male age groupers. At some point, the male age groupers may turn around and say 'actually, we're sick of you interfering with our race. We are just as much a part of this event as you.' I feel that if it goes that way it damages the what I believe to be worthy cause of TriEqual, and potentially provides further momentum to the movement of reducing pro support in endurance sports. I don't think their comments about interference are not warranted, the way they present the message may need to be tweaked so as to not derail the argument (e.g. we want a clean race as do the age top group competitors).

When I hear and read about the hard work of the female and male pioneers of our sport to ensure equality in prize money, it makes me proud to be involved with such a sport. From the early days of the sport, people were willing to risk their own personal gains to influence the sport in a positive way from the start. I believe that limiting pro entry to the world championships to fewer men than women, is a lost opportunity for Ironman to hold their sport up to the world as a one where prize money, race distance, and opportunity is equal. Further, I believe by not having equal spots, WTC is not connecting to the history of our sport and the efforts of its legends such as Erin Baker and Paula Newby Fraser.

Equality in the sport seems to have been a key concern of the professional athletes from the very early days of the sport. It would be shame and a lost opportunity if this is not continued.

Very well said Dan. While I initially was favoring the emotional argument of "Just make it 50 women and make it fair" side of things, the more I've thought about Messick/WTC's response the more it makes sense. I completely agree that both approaches to increasing participation among women can and should be discussed. I also agree with Messick when he says simply adding 15 slots to Kona isn't going to magically make more women start participating in long distance triathlon. Then again, it really wouldn't hurt anything either. It's 15 people on an already over-crowded course.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Social media can be a useful too but considering how many people simply parrot supposed news stories and facts posted on social media, it also needs to be taken with a VERY large grain of salt. There is a lot of passion expressed on social media but this is often done without basis in fact. Making decisions based solely on passionate social media responses would not be a good way for any business to operate and most don't.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA