Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Writerguy] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 9:35

Post #151 of 211 (4828 views)

By and large I agree with what he has to say, specifically that proportional for AG and absolute for a pro WC is not a contradiction.

One thing that flummoxes me, however, is the claim that women have it harder to qualify (as a direct counter to Messick's statement that women have an easier road). Assuming the pro pool numbers of 256 and 438 are accurate, the women should, mathematically speaking, have an easier time qualifying as they get 14% of their ranks through vs 11% of the males. But, Thorsten brings out data that shows they need more KPR points and the average qualifier was forced to race more in order to get those points than their male counterparts. Assuming this is true, then the only explanation can be that a greater percentage of the female pool are actually really, truly out hunting those KPR points and Kona slots. Insights into that?

Honestly, if there is legitimacy to women having a tougher road to Kona and this can be shown quantitatively, then I would advise TriEqual to push this angle hard. Because, you've got Messick thinking the opposite (and the pro pool numbers implying the opposite), so if you're looking to sway entrenched opinions, this is a path forward.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [kny] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 9:50

Post #152 of 211 (4808 views)

> Assuming this is true, then the only explanation can be that a greater percentage of the female pool are actually really, truly out hunting those KPR points and Kona slots. Insights into that?

I believe this is true. I also believe more AG women (percentage wise) are trying to earn spots as well but that's purely anecdotal.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Writerguy] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 10:03

Post #153 of 211 (4796 views)

Writerguy wrote:

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

I'd be fine if WTC caved and said "Okay. You win. 50 women pros to Kona". I understand their point of view as well. But I don't believe even for the fraction of a second that having 50 or even 500 women pros in Kona will have any bearing whatsoever on the participation of Women (or men) in Ironman or Triathlon. Participation in triathlon (and ultimately Ironman) starts at a local, grass-roots level. When I started in triathlon, all I knew was it sounded hard. Swim, Bike, and Run. I had no idea there were people that made a living doing triathlon (or trying to make a living). I couldn't have cared less. I wanted to give it a shot myself and it was intimidating. It wasn't until I tried it and liked it that I learned more about the only Triathlon most people have ever heard of (Kona). It was an eye-opener that Ironman events typically sold out and you had to work really hard just to get in to ONE of them. Of course, that was after I learned there was actually more than one of them. Later, I learned, read, and watched the history of the sport.

I say this because I think the vast majority of new participants are EXACTLY like that. The idea of a 10 mile sprint triathlon is terrifying. The vague notion that there are 15 more women pros in a race they'll probably never have to worry about has no bearing whatsoever on their participation.

I think a lot of energy and emotion about 50/50 could have been better spent encouraging women (and men) to come out and try the sport. Again though, just add the 15 and move on. I think there would be future cans of worms to deal with as a result (see Dan's question about age-group equality) but it probably is no longer worth the fight.

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Last edited by: Mr. October: Apr 30, 15 10:03

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 10:08

Post #154 of 211 (4788 views)

> 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.

I like the idea of 2 counting but am unclear as why they should be declared?
How do take into account a bad race?
Say a woman has the misfortune of being betrayed by her cycle (and I don't mean bike) and then must regroup.
This happened to Sara last year in Texas. She flew off to Brazil the following week and won.

> 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.

They'll be skiing in hell before the WTC would implement something like that. $$$

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Writerguy] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 10:13

Post #155 of 211 (4780 views)

Writerguy wrote:

> Assuming this is true, then the only explanation can be that a greater percentage of the female pool are actually really, truly out hunting those KPR points and Kona slots. Insights into that?

I believe this is true. I also believe more AG women (percentage wise) are trying to earn spots as well but that's purely anecdotal.

Figure this out, because if women are actually suffering a hardship then that is a compelling argument for your cause. No one wants it to be harder for women; there is just a difference in opinion of whether proportional or absolute allotment is most equitable.

Last edited by: kny: Apr 30, 15 13:22

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Mr. October] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 10:18

Post #156 of 211 (4765 views)

Mr. October wrote:

I say this because I think the vast majority of new participants are EXACTLY like that. The idea of a 10 mile sprint triathlon is terrifying. The vague notion that there are 15 more women pros in a race they'll probably never have to worry about has no bearing whatsoever on their participation.

I think a lot of energy and emotion about 50/50 could have been better spent encouraging women (and men) to come out and try the sport. Again though, just add the 15 and move on. I think there would be future cans of worms to deal with as a result (see Dan's question about age-group equality) but it probably is no longer worth the fight.

Preach it, brother.

There are many (better) ways to encourage female participation in IM racing, or triathlon in general. As I noted earlier, the idea that adding women placed 36-50 who garner no coverage in the press is pretty silly.

If you listed the top 10 reasons why women don't race IM, I'm pretty sure the idea of equal slot numbers in Kona is pretty far down the list (and likely not on it at all) But as Mr. October notes, take the energy and emotion being spent on this and use it towards productive means to get women racing. Bite the bullet, provide equal slots (whatever that number may be) and move on to something productive.

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

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Writerguy] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:05

Post #157 of 211 (4720 views)

"I like the idea of 2 counting but am unclear as why they should be declared?"

because if any 2 count - if the top 2 count - then athletes will continue to race, race after race, chasing the points, trying to find a race to displace their current-year's worst race. so you don't want that.

the idea (according to me) is to limit the number of these very debilitating races an athlete can do for the purposes of qualifying, so as not to incentivize the athlete to keep racing past the point of health.

"How do take into account a bad race?"

how do you take into account a bad race at the olympic trials? but, if you want allow for, say, sickness or injury, then you have the ability to "undeclare" a race right up to the point the gun goes off. the point is to not have that race in you - to not have too many races in you. right now some of these athletes are like professional boxers, or football players, and they don't realize what all this racing might mean later on in life.

if you want a race to just not count, because of the example you point out with sara, maybe you allow 1 DNF to count as a "false start" but in this case it's a race where you don't commence the run. mind, i'm literally making this stuff up as i'm writing it, so don't hold me to it. the idea here is to allow a fair shot at qualifying, take into account illness, injury, one's inability to get into shape in the time frame the athlete anticipated, maybe allow for a mechanical, while keeping the athlete from overracing in a points chase.

i have a personal history with a pro athlete who probably overraced in an era where we gave a special award for the best 5 ironman performances during the course of a year, and that didn't count zofingen and nice. so, if you go back and ask welchie, and erin, tinley, paula, and some of the others how that went for them, i'd be surprised if that era of athlete didn't think that there was a lot of overracing and overtraining going on. molina and dave scott didn't race a spitload of ironmans every year and they were the 2 who didn't eventually melt down. even top marathoners don't typically want to race more than 2 marathons a year, and that's just a marathon.

thorsten's analysis, and his whole rationale for adding 15 slots to the women's pro field, had nothing to do with equality or rights. it had to do with his assertion that the women had to race more than the men to qualify for kona. maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, i don't know. what i do suspect is that the system currently invites a mad scramble to get onto the ark by those who aren't on it yet, but the ark's door is closing.

i'm very sympathetic to that problem, i just think the solution for both genders is to place a fixed limit on the number of races an athlete can do that can count for KPR points. or, some other system that discourages overracing.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:36

Post #158 of 211 (4697 views)

Over racing will never be a consideration as long as a "for profit" corporation is running the show. The bottom line has to be their priority. Maximizing shareholder wealth, not minimizing athlete fatigue.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [arby] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:42

Post #159 of 211 (4686 views)

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:45

Post #160 of 211 (4682 views)

texafornia wrote:

1. The modern world doesn't see this as a competing idea. It's simply wrong.

This seems to be a hallmark of society lately: Completely dismissing any alternate view in the name of being open minded.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Mr. October] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:47

Post #161 of 211 (4677 views)

Mr. October wrote:

Ben Hoffman was #41 last year.

Ben got enough points to toe the start line; his goal wasn't to win the KPR. If he needed to be #25 he'd have raced more.

Additionally, if the KPR system were designed to get the "best" 25 athletes to Kona it would be less quantity-focused and more quality-focused than it is now. Some folks were able to get to Kona just by racing a ton, without big standout performances (which puts a average pro who is waaay overraced on the start line.....benefit for WTC, but nothing to do with Kona).

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 11:57

Post #162 of 211 (4659 views)

> if you want allow for, say, sickness or injury, then you have the ability to "undeclare" a race right up to the point the gun goes off. the point is to not have that race in you - to not have too many races in you. right now some of these athletes are like professional boxers, or football players, and they don't realize what all this racing might mean later on in life.
if you want a race to just not count, because of the example you point out with sara, maybe you allow 1 DNF to count as a "false start" but in this case it's a race where you don't commence the run. mind, i'm literally making this stuff up as i'm writing it, so don't hold me to it. the idea here is to allow a fair shot at qualifying, take into account illness, injury, one's inability to get into shape in the time frame the athlete anticipated, maybe allow for a mechanical, while keeping the athlete from overracing in a points chase.

This seems like a thoughtful idea and one I think I would support after some more dialogue where we all had some time to consider the possible iterations.
But as we both know, we can both chat until the beer is all gone and it won't really matter because we don't have the power.
Still - good dialogue.

CL

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [kny] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 12:56

Post #163 of 211 (4611 views)

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC races as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

Last edited by: slorunner: Apr 30, 15 13:04

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 12:57

Post #164 of 211 (4611 views)

Titanflexr wrote:

Mr. October wrote:

Ben Hoffman was #41 last year.

Ben got enough points to toe the start line; his goal wasn't to win the KPR. If he needed to be #25 he'd have raced more.

Additionally, if the KPR system were designed to get the "best" 25 athletes to Kona it would be less quantity-focused and more quality-focused than it is now. Some folks were able to get to Kona just by racing a ton, without big standout performances (which puts a average pro who is waaay overraced on the start line.....benefit for WTC, but nothing to do with Kona).

I agree. Just pointing out where a podium finisher was this year. As Andy Potts said "Just tell me how many points I need and I'll get them".

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [slorunner] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 13:19

Post #165 of 211 (4575 views)

slorunner wrote:

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

Not really the top 10 are racing a similar amount to the top 10 men. Mirinda only needs to only finish a single ironman to get an auto spot, with that she still did 5 WTC races in 2014. But Steffen was 4th in points and only did 3 races. The top 10 fastest women do not need to race much to make the top 35. If you opened up 50 slots, I do not see why the top 10 fastest women would race less.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [chris948] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 13:56

Post #166 of 211 (4524 views)

chris948 wrote:

This seems to be a hallmark of society lately: Completely dismissing any alternate view in the name of being open minded.

*I* think this is pretty much the only facet of this discussion that fascinates me.

It seems that this has become a more common "Strategery" for those arguing some sort of side/point. i.e.; anyone is entitled to their opinion, so long as it's the same as mine ;-). It's ultimately a copy of Henry Ford's idea about the color choices of model T cars.

I'd also add that not only is a differing view dismissed... there is more. There is usually an attachment of racism, sexism, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, etc if you disagree.

Again, this issue doesn't really fascinate me that much, but I find this tactic to be quite unimpressive.

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

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 14:30

Post #167 of 211 (4499 views)

Slowman wrote:

the idea (according to me) is to limit the number of these very debilitating races an athlete can do for the purposes of qualifying, so as not to incentivize the athlete to keep racing past the point of health.

You are probably right on the unhealthy aspect of racing too much, but is there a sport implementing this kind of restriction? Maybe boxing (just guessing), but I don't know of any other endurance sport doing it or expressing that there is a need for such rule. Why is long distance triathlon different from for instance marathons, ultra marathons, trails running, cycling, etc? In addition, one can also push themselves too much in training. Maybe the chance is smaller as the incentive is different from racing, but if health is the point, then logically it should also be taken into account.

Francois-Xavier Li @FrancoisLi
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.swimrunfrance.fr
http://www.worldofswimrun.com

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [slorunner] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 14:33

Post #168 of 211 (4492 views)

slorunner wrote:

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC races as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

+2

Private equity folks are very smart people with the goal of extracting maximum profits and maximizing value potential. I can see "rational" arguments for and against equal numbers, but the current method maximizes pros racing wtc over competitors yielding a greater franchise value to a future buyer. If they ever make it equal, it wouldn't surprise me it's done in a way to still maximize wtc value, irrespective of whatever public relations logic is used when explaining their decision. It also wouldn't surprise me if the points system is altered in such a way to ensure continued high volume pro racing on wtc's circuit over competitors, even if more slots were available.

Bottom line, it's all about their bottom line, and if they can tweak it so the value of the franchise goes higher, they will, irrespective of equal, not equal, etc. of course the marketing spin, will be just that, marketing spin, but behind closed doors is what matters to the stakeholders.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [mcycle] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 14:55

Post #169 of 211 (4481 views)

mcycle wrote:

Bottom line, it's all about their bottom line, and if they can tweak it so the value of the franchise goes higher, they will, irrespective of equal, not equal, etc. of course the marketing spin, will be just that, marketing spin, but behind closed doors is what matters to the stakeholders.

Agreed. When "equality" starts to factor into the pro slot allocation it will be because they either perceive or have data that supports that unequal pro slot allocation is negatively impacting AG race registration or sponsorship commitments.

Last edited by: slorunner: Apr 30, 15 14:56

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 18:55

Post #170 of 211 (4399 views)

Titanflexr wrote:

Mr. October wrote:

Ben Hoffman was #41 last year.

Ben got enough points to toe the start line; his goal wasn't to win the KPR. If he needed to be #25 he'd have raced more.

Additionally, if the KPR system were designed to get the "best" 25 athletes to Kona it would be less quantity-focused and more quality-focused than it is now. Some folks were able to get to Kona just by racing a ton, without big standout performances (which puts a average pro who is waaay overraced on the start line.....benefit for WTC, but nothing to do with Kona).

So you're saying that for #41 Ben to get all the benefits of being at Kona, he didn't have to try as hard as somebody that had to get at least #35? Like a female pro has to?

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

Last edited by: texafornia: Apr 30, 15 18:56

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [mcycle] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 19:42

Post #171 of 211 (4366 views)

mcycle wrote:

slorunner wrote:

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC races as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

+2

Private equity folks are very smart people with the goal of extracting maximum profits and maximizing value potential. I can see "rational" arguments for and against equal numbers, but the current method maximizes pros racing wtc over competitors yielding a greater franchise value to a future buyer. If they ever make it equal, it wouldn't surprise me it's done in a way to still maximize wtc value, irrespective of whatever public relations logic is used when explaining their decision. It also wouldn't surprise me if the points system is altered in such a way to ensure continued high volume pro racing on wtc's circuit over competitors, even if more slots were available.

Bottom line, it's all about their bottom line, and if they can tweak it so the value of the franchise goes higher, they will, irrespective of equal, not equal, etc. of course the marketing spin, will be just that, marketing spin, but behind closed doors is what matters to the stakeholders.

Huh?
Someone had better tell WTC they doing it wrong as the three women listed above all raced the biggest IM distance event outside of Kona in 2014, Challenge Roth.
I'd also love to know how Tri Equal could challenge Kona being called a WC since the world governing body recognizes it as such.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [slorunner] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 19:53

Post #172 of 211 (4359 views)

slorunner wrote:

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC races as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

Kona offers so many KPR points that being in the top ten there virtually guarantees that you will qualify for Kona for the next year. Basically, if you finish in the top ten, all you really have to do is validate your slot for the next year by finishing an IM. Carfrae also has an automatic qualification by virtue of winning, so all she has to do is validate. It's the women (and men) who finish outside the top ten that have to scramble to re-qualify.

I wonder if having fewer slots at Kona for women actually discourages some extremely fast women that don't normally do iron distance races from throwing their hats in the ring and trying to qualify. For example, if women thought they could get enough points to qualify by racing only one ironman race, we might see some fast ITU women giving it a shot. Those women might not, however, even bother trying to qualify for Kona if it means they're going to have to race three or four ironman races a year (at least until their ITU careers are completely over).

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [tucktri] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 20:01

Post #173 of 211 (4350 views)

tucktri wrote:

Huh?
Someone had better tell WTC they doing it wrong as the three women listed above all raced the biggest IM distance event outside of Kona in 2014, Challenge Roth.
I'd also love to know how Tri Equal could challenge Kona being called a WC since the world governing body recognizes it as such.

What's stopping the ITU from reversing that decision? If Tri Equal could get the ITU and USAT in their camp for equal slots WTC might be more receptive. If the qualification rules for Kona were set by the ITU or USAT we wouldn't have this issue. WTC has a conflict of interest on this issue.

Yes, all three of the women I mentioned raced Roth, but thats just one race vs at least 4-5 WTC races.

Last edited by: slorunner: Apr 30, 15 20:05

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [tucktri] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 20:07

Post #174 of 211 (4346 views)

tucktri wrote:

mcycle wrote:

slorunner wrote:

kny wrote:

The pros pay an annual fee, so one or ten races per year generates the same revenue for WTC. WTC is interested only in that their pros have to race enough WTC events in order to get their points that it effectively keeps them away from Challenge, Rev3, and indies.

^^THIS^^ has to be primary reason for the 50/35 slot allocation. If it were 50/50, Marinda, Steffen, Joyce, and the rest of the usual top 10 at Kona would be free to race Challenge and other races with larger purses rather than chasing points. Its not about keeping 36-50 off the pier, its about keeping 1-10 in as many of the other WTC races as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, WTC is allowed to call Kona a world championship due to some agreement/permission from the ITU even though they are not technically a governing body of triathlon. Tri Equal might have more success challenging WTC's ability to call Kona a WC.

+2

Private equity folks are very smart people with the goal of extracting maximum profits and maximizing value potential. I can see "rational" arguments for and against equal numbers, but the current method maximizes pros racing wtc over competitors yielding a greater franchise value to a future buyer. If they ever make it equal, it wouldn't surprise me it's done in a way to still maximize wtc value, irrespective of whatever public relations logic is used when explaining their decision. It also wouldn't surprise me if the points system is altered in such a way to ensure continued high volume pro racing on wtc's circuit over competitors, even if more slots were available.

Bottom line, it's all about their bottom line, and if they can tweak it so the value of the franchise goes higher, they will, irrespective of equal, not equal, etc. of course the marketing spin, will be just that, marketing spin, but behind closed doors is what matters to the stakeholders.

Huh?
Someone had better tell WTC they doing it wrong as the three women listed above all raced the biggest IM distance event outside of Kona in 2014, Challenge Roth.
I'd also love to know how Tri Equal could challenge Kona being called a WC since the world governing body recognizes it as such.

Maximizing pros racing wtc is very different from having a monopoly on the pros only racing their events. I think many could easily make the argument that wtc is very effectively maximizing pro participation in their events. Much better than any of their triathlon producing competitors. I would imagine the very top tri pros are getting incentives or appearance fees to participate in some of the other marque races that are not affiliated with wtc and these incentives are too good to financially pass up.

Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Apr 30, 15 20:20

Post #175 of 211 (4332 views)

If the women at Triequal.com are so uncivil and wrong.
Why do you think brands like Roka and Newton are supporting them?

Same with Blueseventy, 51 Speedshop, Ruster Sport, Enve, Nuun, Osmo, Oiselle, Picky Bars, Purple Patch, TT Bike Fit and many more http://www.triequal.com/#!brads/cf2k

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.