The problem with the proportional representation argument, as I see it, is that it is not objective (as the Kona qualifying AG slots are). 50/35 are arbitrary numbers. As you point out above, the proportions of men and women at Kona based on the populations of pro men and women are unequal. If, instead, the top 10% of all male and female pros made it to Kona, THAT would be objective proportional representation.

It seems that the lack of depth in the female pro ranks has led to the 35 number being chosen subjectively. This is not an unreasonable figure, given WTC doesn't really want to see the weakest pro women 'struggle' in to the Kona finish in 10:45 (say) or worse. But it's a subjective figure, and that is what lays WTC open to criticism.

Exactly. Cycling is a great example. It is far more popular with a far bigger television budget and prize purse than triathlon will ever be even in it's wildest dream. Yet opportunities for pro women in cycling are just about non-existent and recognition is unheard of.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Irony can be so 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

The better question is that use effective. My answer would be no. Their use is extremely ineffective. If they sell a single entrance to any IM race I'd be surprised. I also think you're overestimating their value to products as well. Yes, pros get first crack at most equipment whether that be bikes or wheels or suits or whatever but I've seen many instances were it appeared equipment choices trickled up from the AG ranks to the pros and not the seemingly more natural other way.

The problem with triathlon and professional advertisement, marketing, and use is the industry is trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Triathlon is modeling the pros in the same way the major sports does. Problem is the professionals are the attraction in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Premier League, etc. Everyone wants to be Lebron James or Tom Brady or David Beckham or whoever. Nobody wants to be a pro triathlete. They're not making $30,000,000 per year, they're not on TV, they're not living in mansions, they're not driving Ferraris, and they're not banging Brazilian supermodels or Spice Girls. They can't use the model used by major pro sports. I just don't think it works as effectively as it could.

I'd argue that using fitness models in the ads would have the same impact as a named triathlete. Potentially more so since the models are probably better looking, and lets face it, beauty and sex sells for both men and women. Nothing against the four people you mentioned as, with the exception of Macca, they're better than average looking human beings. Macca is stop the clock ugly. :-)

---

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

I agree. If they're going to go with proportional representation, then it should be an explicit proportional representation as the AG slot distribution is handled (kind of).

For averaged 2011-2014 results at least, the tail finishers of the 50 male and 35 female field have performed similarly, at about 115% of the winner, indicating the 35/50 ratio is close to spot-on if equivalent performances or depth-of-field across the two sets were to be a metric.

Remember that our Presidential elections ARE proportionally based via the electoral college.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Maybe I missed it if you posted it before but what would the women's line look like if you went out to 50?

---

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

Ben Hoffman was #41 last year.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

?? That can only be determined if and when 50 toe the line. But, if you want to predict, the trendline points to a widening performance gap as the finish place gets higher.

No, it isn't. The electoral college is "all or nothing" in terms of winning a state. If you win a state's popular vote, you win ALL of the electoral votes for that state.

Hence the reason you can win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

---

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

"The electoral college is "all or nothing" in terms of winning a state."

i believe it's up to each state to determine how its electoral votes are cast, and most states go all or nothing because it enhances the value of that state to the candidates, making the candidates pay more attention to the state.

therefore i don't think the electoral college can be a relevant example for this case.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

But the number of electoral votes your State has is proportionally based on the size of the State's population.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Exactly, if they want to keep the proportional system, they need to produce a formula for determining the number of slots. If they do not want to do this, then give each one equal numbers. If they have a formula, it gives the ability to show what it will take to get equal numbers.

But the electoral votes are not allocated proportionally according to the popular vote in that state....if a candidate wins 50.1% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 49.9%, 100% of those electoral votes go to the winner. That is not proportional allocation.

---

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

That is not how every state functions. Some states do in fact split up their vote. It is left to the state however to choose (IIRC).

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

2 - Maine & Nebraska, IIRC.

So 48 have non-proportional allocation of their electoral votes.

---

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

clint, thank you for a reasoned and civil response. may i take issue with a couple of your points?

"Civility is the privilege of those in power."

when i look at the coverage of what's going on in baltimore i see looters, and i see leaders of the black community decrying the looters and exhorting peace and respect for the law from their constituency. i don't see the baltimore's black leadership standing mum, in tacit solidarity with the looters. i don't see a history of incivility from those successful at speaking truth to power.

i think it takes a special pair of glasses to think the incivility on this issue is symmetrical. i don't mind - i welcome - the views of TriEqual's founders and leaders. this is worth talking about. i spent 10 years doing what you do (being a husband to a top female pro). i've fought that fight, and i'm very sympathetic to the issue of start times because of the pressures on pro women in a race like ironman that male AGers not only don't see, don't understand, but often cause.

i've been invited to interview your talented and accomplished wife, and i'm eager to do that. one question i absolutely will have is why the TriEqual leadership - herself included - has said or written nothing (that i have read) to tamp down the vicious language coming from those who align themselves with TriEqual. i'm absolutely going to ask that question.

your wife, sara gross, writes: "If Ironman was an American University, the current inequality of opportunity for the professional women would not only be wrong, it would also be illegal."

here are the Title IX tests, to see if an institution is in conformity with the law:

"Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports."

ironman would not have to meet all 3 criteria, but any 1 of the 3. i think it meets all 3. obviously it meets #1. ironman goes further than Title IX requires by paying equal prize money.

so, if sara holds up Title IX as a template for ironman's behavior, ironman is behaving right now in absolute symmetry with how Title IX works.

all that said, i agree with your wife and the other TriEqual leaders that there should be equal numbers of men and women on the pier, but not because of equality or justice. i was offended, am offended, and will continue to be offended by those who say or insinuate that adhering to Title IX's proportional representation model is sexist. i think proportional representation is a defensible vision for equity. TriEqual's leadership holds to another interpretation of equity, and i would be equally irate if they were called names by those who just don't have the imagination to see, and sympathize with, this other expression of equity (even if they don't agree with it).

your wife not only understands the argument for proportional representation (to her credit), she apparently does not feel it violates the spirit of equity, because i think she agrees that it's the appropriate way for AG women, older men and women, and any other cohort to gain their slots on the pier. but i can't say for certain whether she believes this, because none of the TriEqual leadership will address the question. instead, you and they say that it's not a proper question to ask. i think it is. you write that censorship is deplorable and you're right. the cure for censorship is transparency and i don't see why transparency on this question is a bad thing. if you're not afraid of the answer, then i'd like to hear the answer. the more TriEqual's leadership digs its heels in and refuses to answer, the more i wonder why.

the reason i think it makes sense for male and female pros to be equally represented on the pier is because kona is a WC. but this causes a lot of people to wonder what the proper number of slots ought to be for a WC. this is another discussion the TriEqual leadership just will not have. it's like "control the border first, only then will we talk about the treatment of undocumented workers." no. i think we ought to talk about all of it. i think we ought to have a discussion where the TriEqual leadership doesn't foreclose on what i think are pretty legitimate questions. i don't think it ought to be: give us 15 slots, and only then will we entertain your questions.

i have a lot of respect for sara. she's done more to raise the profile and power of pro athletes than any athlete in the history of ironman racing. she, and rachel, have shown more balls than any male pro triathlete, ever, when it comes to putting herself on the firing line for athletes rights. but then this is the history of pro triathlon. the women have the balls. erin baker and sue latshaw quit racing ironman - vocally - because of the swim start in kona, the subject of yesterday's TriEqual press release. because we have these ladies who are so courageous, so eloquent, so accomplished i don't want to short-sell them by treating them the way i frankly have seen pro triathletes treated since the inception of the sport: like fragile adolescents who can't be questioned overhard. your wife has way too much moxy for that, and that's why i'm asking for a grown-up discussion. your wife actually is a grown-up. i am just so impressed with her. you did good to latch onto that ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Agreed. They could also do like the AGs and do a hybrid of equal and proportional. Something like 15 slots equal + 8% proportional. In the AG world, slots are given out effectively 50% equal and 50% proportional. In the common scenario nowadays of a race with 50 slots and 25 populated AGs, then it is exactly a 50/50 hybrid distribution of equal and proportional in fact. 25 slots go equal via 1 automatic to each AG. Then the 25 remaining slots are doled out proportionally.

So, what would 15 + 8% look like using the pro pool numbers of 256 and 438 thrown out earlier?
Men: 15 + 438*.08 = 50
Women: 15 + 256*.08 = 35

No, it isn't.

Electoral votes are based on the number of Senators and Reps each state has I think. So you are correct that its not based on population.

It's a hybrid, just like the Kona AG slot system.

Every state + DC gets 2. The remaining 438 are allocated proportionally based on population.

bgoldstein's circular graph hides the fact that it is pretty close to proportional with about 40 of 50 having similar values and just 10 of 50 being outliers and all those outliers being the low population states that are overrepresented with their 2 automatic electoral college votes (analogy: the old AGs that get an automatic 1 slot but which deserve 0 on a pure proportional basis). Put that same data in that circular graph in a standard x-y graph and it is much more obvious that the electoral college allocation is pretty closely aligned with population.

But, let's move back to the real topic at hand.

It's proportional in that a state with more people will have more votes. It is not directly proportional beause no matter how small the state, it will always start with it's first two votes. Which is why it may seem like a persons popular vote in Wyoming is very important. Don't kid yourself, look where the campaigns go, they know whose vote matters, and it's not Wyoming.

This is exactly how AG Kona slots are not directly proportional to AG starters. Every AG with a person gets its first slot. As such, one can find anomolies where 100% of the people in a certain AG get a spot (I w70/75 shows up) but les than 10 percent of men 30-34 get a spot even if the comprise 15 percent of the race.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

Thanks Dan - and you're spot on, I married out of my class!
A few things, I won't for a moment suggest that the rudeness has been symmetrical.
I took issue with the suggestion that it was only on one side when that clearly was not the case.
And of course there are levels of vulgarity that should not be tolerated by either side.
The comments about Kathryn Bertine were rightfully removed.
You mention the Baltimore looters but I was thinking of an old newspaper column I read that was written after Rosa Parks took her famous ride.
The writer supported her cause but thought her methods most distasteful. She broke the law!!
I'm with you, the looters have gone too far but I wonder if history will support us in this?
I also agree with you that the TriEqual board should come out against unnecessary rudeness. People have a right to be angry but not ugly.
And I personally - not speaking for Sara, would happily engage all and sundry on the issues of the Age Group race. It's a dynamic issue for sure.
My gut feeling is that an equal number of spots would be challenge but would sort itself out with time. I believe more women would race Ironman but it wouldn't happen over night. I also don't think it would hurt the numbers in any significant way, as it has been my anecdotal experience that while there are more men racing IM, a greater percentage of the women racing are shooting for spots. Now it may just be that women are more likely hire a coach so that just may be my perception. I think it's a big conversation and an important one.

I freely admit, I'm no better than the next guy when it comes to changing my position.
I personally don't believe I could ever be moved. The WTC wants the pro women to rise up and fill positions that do not exist.
The opportunity must be there first. It's the right thing to do.
When they come, we'll build it doesn't work.

I'll let Sara address your other points.
The Title IX query is valid I think, but she knows a lot more about that than me - but it may be that she doesn't know enough yet (hope she doesn't read this).
On a selfish personal note, while I 100% support Sara's efforts and probably was in a small way partially responsible for unleashing the beast, (equality is a "thing" with me as well) I'm hoping that she will step back from this, at least in some measure for the next six months. She's got some racing to do.
The WTC is clearly not going to move on the issue, so it'll be there in the winter.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the matter.
Clint

Here's a guy way smarter than me addressing some of the stuff that's been discussed here.

http://www.trirating.com/...-i-am-50womentokona/

first, you're a gentleman. thanks for your thoughts on this.

as to thorsten's main argument, i just have a bigger problem in general with KPR and, for that matter, kona qualifying for AGers. i think pro athletes, men and women, ought to declare which will be their qualifying races, and they can declare a max number. maybe 2 IM + 3 70.3. something like that. that's it. you can change your declaration at any time, but you have a maximum number of races for which you can earn points and if it's not a declared race you can't earn points.

this keeps both men and women from chasing points race after race. this, i hope, would keep these folks healthier. if the goal is to keep people from overracing these events that are very hard on the body, there are solutions that work better, i think, than the number of available slots on the pier.

i'm also not wild about AGers chasing kona race after race. i'd like to see a 2-and-out rule, per qualifying season. you can race more than 2 ironmans if you want, but only your first 2 are good for kona qualifying. maybe even just 1.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman