Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast.
Quote | Reply
His interview starts at 36 minutes in.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Care to elaborate for those of us who don't want to listen to it?
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've listened. As Rappster and Slowman have articulated WTCs position makes sense from an allocation per racer framework.

However, and I've had this position throughout; 50 is as arbitrary as 35. Why 50? So my argument has been 40/40 and in turn WTC gets 5 spots back.

Another point Andrew makes which is accurate....there are races where not all women prize money is spent because not enough pros racing. Obviously argument back is....no shit....but if more pro opportunity to Kona by extension more pros will get their card and race. It's around and around we go....

My out of box idea is run the pros Sunday. Voila. No issues. Re the race. Maybe from a town perspective. But out of box is what started all this way back.... Eliminates the bigger issue of top women pros interfered with by fast AG men and slow male pros. Can start races an hour a part and give 10 hrs to finish for men, 11hr for women. Done before dinner.

ITU long course does this. Or at least when I raced in 2004....

@rhyspencer
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not really. Subject line says it all. Depressing to rehash it. Just letting people know it's out there.

The logical fallacy of going on and on how they want to grow the brand to be a real global championship race when every other global championship race has equal male/female pros might make people's heads hurt.

----------------------------------------------------------
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 28, 15 6:44
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There isn't any real issue or challenge here. The resistance is entirely due to ego and sexism.

Every single person who write some essay pulling together statistics about depth of field or orthogonal arguments about age groupers is just sexist, even if they don't realize it, and missing the point entirely.

They damage their own business prospects in the process too. It is so incredibly stupid.

I'm not throwing this claim out here casually, I've waited many weeks to see the arguments hash out and now I'm making it. Because I've seen people just argue themselves in senseless circles, making herculean efforts to find some way to figure that 50 women to kona is a bad idea.

****
If such cognitive powers were applied to the process of finding 15 spots on the pier they would have already been found. Your businesses would look less like sexist dinosaurs, you would be applauded for doing the right thing, and more female pros might be able to scrape together a little bit more of career. You would have a positive PR story for free.

EVERYBODY FUCKING WINS
*****



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Last edited by: jackmott: Apr 28, 15 7:02
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Awesome. No need to say more.
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So we agree then.

I've also maintained the WTC is run by white male private equity. Big ego. Big money. and very clearly very poor PR knowledge.

I do like comparisons to say Wimbledon. The draw is the draw. Same numbers either side. Thanks to Billie Jean King....in the fucking 70s for crying out loud. It's 2015 WTC!

And the death nail in business is when a leader says these words "it's the way we've always done it" .... Andrew said that multiple times.

40/40 on Saturday...or crush all competitors in the LC space and run a pro only on Sunday and can go 100/100 if they want.

The answers are easy. The egos are not.

@rhyspencer
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rhys wrote:
So we agree then.

I've also maintained the WTC is run by white male private equity. Big ego. Big money. and very clearly very poor PR knowledge.

I do like comparisons to say Wimbledon. The draw is the draw. Same numbers either side. Thanks to Billie Jean King....in the fucking 70s for crying out loud. It's 2015 WTC!

And the death nail in business is when a leader says these words "it's the way we've always done it" .... Andrew said that multiple times.

40/40 on Saturday...or crush all competitors in the LC space and run a pro only on Sunday and can go 100/100 if they want.

The answers are easy. The egos are not.

A two day event is probably the worst solution available. Two days of disruption for the town, two days of volunteer commitment. Two days of road closures. Not going to happen.
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"There isn't any real issue or challenge here. The resistance is entirely due to ego and sexism."

in my opinion, your opinion - as expressed above - is a problem. your opinion is not the problem, rather the way you express it. i listened to the podcast, and the interviewers brought up, at least twice, the specific issue of the quality of the discussion. the responses in social media are extremely strident and mean spirited, and ALL the mean-spiritedness and name-calling is coming from one side.

one thing you heard from andrew during this podcast is his civility. during the podcast he said (and I don't have any reason to doubt his word on this) he returned every phone call and every email he's received on this issue. i doubt any of his responses were as dismissive as yours above.

andrew, and his team, believes in proportional representation, while maintaining equal prize money, and he favors a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach when looking at ways to increase participation in ironman among women. you, and the TriEqual group, believe there's a better way, or a more fair way, or a smarter way, or a way that in the end will yield a better result. but i don't see your view as more egalitarian, and ironman's as sexist. i see it as a pair of executable ideas that each deserves oxygen for discussion. there IS a set of competing ideas here. your unwillingness to acknowledge an opposing argument does not obliterate it.

the more one side's advocates continue to engage in name-calling and demonizing while its leaders side sit mum and let it happen, the more the TriEqual movement will be judged by the quality of the debate rather than the quality of its narrative. i don't see how this gets 15 more pro women on the pier.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Being civil when you are doing something wrong is sort of the hallmark of entrenched powers. Then when people get mad about being wronged, you point and decry their lack of civility.

Ultimately neither of us are any different in how dismissive we are. There is widespread call for a change that is incredibly easy to implement and he has said no, he has dismissed those widespread calls to action.

I've dismissed that choice as a foolish one. Whether fair or not, true or not, he and the people defending his choice appear to most as sexist dinosaurs now. Bad for business. You guys are taking such a pointless stand.

Letting another 15 women to kona is orthogonal to whatever bottom up approach he wants to implement. It doesn't take away from it. You can do both. You can run the disc wheel *and* train more.

If he needs $100 for another bike rack I will send him the $100



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BOOM!
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
i see it as a pair of executable ideas that each deserves oxygen for discussion. there IS a set of competing ideas here.

Dan, this is the source of the problem right here:

1. The modern world doesn't see this as a competing idea. It's simply wrong. That's why people are so upset and acting the way they are. They wouldn't be acting this way if it wasn't so outrageous. So, the behavior actually proves the point.
2. There is no discussion coming from WTC. Just silence or non-action. Denying social media is a way to communicate further illustrates to the customer base that the company is lost in time, just like it's policy on female pros.

I'm no expert, but a company saying that this is the way it's always been and denying that social media is real has trouble written all over it.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, apparently I am a sexist since I don;t think the quality of depth for the women's field warrants 50 slots, but I understand the calls for equality. There is merit to both sides.... I'd be open to having that discussion in depth, but since it is apparently just sexism, I suppose there is no point.

However, at the end of the day, this is a valid point:

Quote:
I'm no expert, but a company saying that this is the way it's always been and denying that social media is real has trouble written all over it.

WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over. Few people who support the status quo would be railing on social media and keeping the firestorm blazing. WTC's position is, in the end, untenable IMO from a PR perspective. They should simply make the move towards equal slots and move on. The "story" ends right thereand they can focus on other things.

IOW, this isn't worth dropping on their swords....

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
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"The modern world doesn't see this as a competing idea. It's simply wrong. That's why people are so upset and acting the way they are. They wouldn't be acting this way if it wasn't so outrageous. So, the behavior actually proves the point."

i favor gay marriage. i favor legalizing pot, altho i'm not a pot user myself. i favor a woman's right to choose. i'm against laws that increase ballot-box scrutiny. but i acknowledge the existence of rational arguments on the other side of each of these issues. i'm willing to hear the other side and to acknowledge that i am not the repository of all wisdom. i'm willing to have my trajectory bent by a sound argument. i am not afraid to listen to the other side's argument and give it the dignity of consideration.

you say, of ironman, "the behavior actually proves the point." i think there's more than a germ of wisdom in TriEqual's argument, but if "the behavior actually proves the point" i think that wisdom is in peril of getting drowned out by the behavior.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
WTC is losing the PR battle on this one.

I'm curious to this statement.

Outside of ST and maybe the pro cohort, I don't think the WTC is experiencing much stress from its largest sect of stake-holders. I.E. the average age grouper. The way I see it, the ST crowd is in favor of equal slots, but not unanimously. Or, if they are in favor, they are divided as to exactly how equal slots should look (50:50, 35:35, etc.) The Pros seem to be in favor of equal slots but still flock to the WTC, therefore, sending conflicting messages of their support of the WTC. Age Group participation is strong, in both the mens and womens.

I don't see how, in the grand scheme of things, this hurts the WTC's business model. The Ironman brand is as strong as ever. If anything, with the race expansion producing more WTC fans than ever, the 15 additional female slots at Kona are way down on the PR priority wagon.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over."

as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"

i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.

about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.

but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.

now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.

but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Apr 28, 15 8:10
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Pros seem to be in favor of equal slots but still flock to the WTC

Are there other race organizations with a pro purse that they could choose ?
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You discount that most sponsorship contracts that pro's are on often will pay more bonus/only pay bonus if they have results at a WTC-branded event. The financial reality of remaining a pro triathlete is that you may, begrudgingly, need to participate at their events currently. Some can and have made a living elsewhere (hello, Cam Dye), but for long-course…they are the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I think that's part of the reason that the screaming is as loud as it is; in general, we tend to yell at monopolies when they act poorly (see, e.g., Amazon business practices and other retailers, or Google and what it does with search data).

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
"WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over."

as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"

i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.

about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.

but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.

now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.

but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.


That is an excellent question.
Last edited by: M~: Apr 28, 15 8:24
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [arby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
arby wrote:
The Pros seem to be in favor of equal slots but still flock to the WTC

Are there other race organizations with a pro purse that they could choose ?

http://www.challenge-family.com/home/
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
x 2. No win situation.

M~ wrote:
Slowman wrote:
"WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over."

as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"

i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.

about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.

but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.

now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.

but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.


That is an excellent question.
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"


It's a question that gets no answer because it's not happening. And using "what if" arguments for things that don't exist show a weak position. What if dogs marry cats? What if aliens attack? Those questions are taken just as seriously - not at all. And the "what if" is clearly seen as a diversion tactic. You get a unfriendly response because people are tired of it.

----------------------------------------------------------
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 28, 15 9:06
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [arby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with wtc: they should also reduce the women's podium to two steps just to keep the ratios more in line. Lol

http://RoadID.com/...te/4HC4V-TAFQ9XPJDTX
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
texafornia wrote:
Slowman wrote:
i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"


It's a question that gets no answer because it's not happening. And using "what if" arguments for things that don't exist show a weak position. What if dogs marry cats? What if aliens attack? Those questions are taken just as seriously - not at all. And the "what if" is clearly seen as a diversion tactic. You get a unfriendly response because people are tired of it.

It is completely relevant. It is precedent setting. The WTC would be making a stand saying " Yes in fact, there should be equal amount of male and females on the pier in this race". Can they say this ONLY applies to the Pro race? Hard to say. I think the real point is do they want to take that gamble?
Quote Reply
Re: Andrew Messick maintains his position on IM Talk Podcast. [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It would appear WTC made a bit of a u turn as last year they were willing to give -I think- 5 more slots to females , so i would think that mr messincks argument about consitency is not that correct as they had agreed to give more slots and now it appeares more that becasue the pros did not agree to it last year they are being "punished " for it.
I am on the fence on this subject , as i see both sides points, but i think by making an offer for more females last year to more female slots and this year saying it would not be fair , WTC weakens their arguementation that they are consitent, as it would seem that last year they agreeed more fmeales should race.

My issue with the whole discussion is, going to kona should not be based on which gender you are, it should be based on the quality of performance.( and i think female age grouper from 25-40 are the biggest loser, besides the absurd practice to have lottery slots for world champs .



Slowman wrote:
"WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over."

as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"

i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.

about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.

but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.

now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.

but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.
Quote Reply

Prev Next