Anyone else get the impression (or experience) that there's a lot of bias in how the WC slots are allocated?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
Biased towards what exactly?
Males between the age of 30 and 54? Its not bias as these ages have the majority number of starters over the rest of the field. Hence why they get the majority of the slots. This is how the calculation works (based off number of starters in each ag compared to total number of starters).
blog
Males between the age of 30 and 54? Its not bias as these ages have the majority number of starters over the rest of the field. Hence why they get the majority of the slots. This is how the calculation works (based off number of starters in each ag compared to total number of starters).
blog
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [stevej]
[ In reply to ]
Actually, against the male 30-54 AGs.
The advertised rules say that each AG with a starter will receive a WC slot. That is fine, even though that already, gives most AGs more slots/starter than larger AGs (M 30-54), I understand why they do that.
However, after those slots are allocated, the remaining are supposed to be allocated in proportion to the number of starters. I've noticed that this procedure has not been followed reliably, making the slots/stater ratio even less for large AGs. (ie bias against M30-54).
The advertised rules say that each AG with a starter will receive a WC slot. That is fine, even though that already, gives most AGs more slots/starter than larger AGs (M 30-54), I understand why they do that.
However, after those slots are allocated, the remaining are supposed to be allocated in proportion to the number of starters. I've noticed that this procedure has not been followed reliably, making the slots/stater ratio even less for large AGs. (ie bias against M30-54).
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
Ahh gotcha...
However, after those slots are allocated, the remaining are supposed to be allocated in proportion to the number of starters. I've noticed that this procedure has not been followed reliably, making the slots/stater ratio even less for large AGs. (ie bias against M30-54).
Do you have a race with numbers as an example to show? There is the known fact that IM’s calculation is incorrect and that it does not 100% equally distribute the remaining slots based of number of starters. They changed the calculation late last year and I’ve found their new slot allocations are more often the same as the correct mathematical way to calculate the slots (based on distributing them equally). But there is still the possibility of their calculation giving an AG an additional slot where it isnt necessarily deserving when doing the math.
blog
GoForward wrote:
However, after those slots are allocated, the remaining are supposed to be allocated in proportion to the number of starters. I've noticed that this procedure has not been followed reliably, making the slots/stater ratio even less for large AGs. (ie bias against M30-54).
Do you have a race with numbers as an example to show? There is the known fact that IM’s calculation is incorrect and that it does not 100% equally distribute the remaining slots based of number of starters. They changed the calculation late last year and I’ve found their new slot allocations are more often the same as the correct mathematical way to calculate the slots (based on distributing them equally). But there is still the possibility of their calculation giving an AG an additional slot where it isnt necessarily deserving when doing the math.
blog
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [stevej]
[ In reply to ]
Yes, I have race numbers from a race last November (70.3 Xiamen. 2016) where they very obviously did not allocated the slots in proportion giving an extra slot to F 25-29. I was in a large male AG and was next in line for a slot, so a bitter pill to swallow.
I didn't know that the IM allocation procedure/calculation/algorithm was found to be faulty and changed last year. Where is that found?
I didn't know that the IM allocation procedure/calculation/algorithm was found to be faulty and changed last year. Where is that found?
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
GoForward wrote:
Yes, I have race numbers from a race last November (70.3 Xiamen. 2016) where they very obviously did not allocated the slots in proportion giving an extra slot to F 25-29. I was in a large male AG and was next in line for a slot, so a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't know that the IM allocation procedure/calculation/algorithm was found to be faulty and changed last year. Where is that found?
this horse has been well and truly beaten on this forum... search KNY's posts on slot calculation
Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting
“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
GoForward wrote:
Yes, I have race numbers from a race last November (70.3 Xiamen. 2016) where they very obviously did not allocated the slots in proportion giving an extra slot to F 25-29. I was in a large male AG and was next in line for a slot, so a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't know that the IM allocation procedure/calculation/algorithm was found to be faulty and changed last year. Where is that found?
My understanding is that when slots are re-allocated from an AG where they are not taken (e.g., say no finisher in F70+), it must stay within the SAME gender. I.e., it goes to the largest AG in that gender, not to the largest AG in the entire field.
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
Can you post numbers (starters based on AG) for the race?
The calculation has been faulty for quite some time. User KNY has made posts about it on here and he's the one that figured out that they changed the calculation late last year. IM doesn't tell us how they calculate it but folks have been able to reverse engineer it to figure out their calculations.
blog
The calculation has been faulty for quite some time. User KNY has made posts about it on here and he's the one that figured out that they changed the calculation late last year. IM doesn't tell us how they calculate it but folks have been able to reverse engineer it to figure out their calculations.
blog
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [ericMPro]
[ In reply to ]
ericMPro wrote:
GoForward wrote:
Yes, I have race numbers from a race last November (70.3 Xiamen. 2016) where they very obviously did not allocated the slots in proportion giving an extra slot to F 25-29. I was in a large male AG and was next in line for a slot, so a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't know that the IM allocation procedure/calculation/algorithm was found to be faulty and changed last year. Where is that found?
this horse has been well and truly beaten on this forum... search KNY's posts on slot calculation
And to mash the cadaver a little bit further:
This is what you get if you leave the governance of your sport to a private corporation instead of an (inter)national federation. Sure, the people running the federation may be as corrupt as fuck (true fact: when I looked up 'corruption' in my dictionary all it showed was a photo of Sepp Blatter) but at least you know the rules of the game. With Ironman you get both the corruption and arbitrary, non published, and not enforced rules.
Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [HuffNPuff]
[ In reply to ]
HuffNPuff wrote:
My understanding is that when slots are re-allocated from an AG where they are not taken (e.g., say no finisher in F70+), it must stay within the SAME gender. I.e., it goes to the largest AG in that gender, not to the largest AG in the entire field.
It does stay in the same gender but it does not necessarily go to the largest AG in that gender. It goes to the next deserving AG (based off the calculation).
blog
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [stevej]
[ In reply to ]
stevej wrote:
HuffNPuff wrote:
My understanding is that when slots are re-allocated from an AG where they are not taken (e.g., say no finisher in F70+), it must stay within the SAME gender. I.e., it goes to the largest AG in that gender, not to the largest AG in the entire field.
It does stay in the same gender but it does not necessarily go to the largest AG in that gender. It goes to the next deserving AG (based off the calculation).
I forgot about that. Thank you for the correction. [Note: at my age, it would take an act of God to be the next deserving AG.]
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [HuffNPuff]
[ In reply to ]
Yes, if there are finishers and no one accepts the slots, those stay in the gender and are supposed to be allocated proportionately. There are sometimes more slots that go beyond the one per AG uniform allocation and those are supposed to be allocated by proportion of slots/finishers. It's in the athlete's guide under WC slot allocation.
It should be simple math. Just recalculate ratio of slots to finishers after each allocated slot, then award the next one to the highest ratio.
It's interesting to hear the word "deserving." When I asked IM/WTC about it, they said it was not allocated to my AG when the ratios showed my AG should have gotten the next slot, because they felt the other AG was more "deserving." Even if it resulted in F25-29 getting 1 slot per 16 starters and my AG (M45-49) getting 1 slot per 36 starters.
It should be simple math. Just recalculate ratio of slots to finishers after each allocated slot, then award the next one to the highest ratio.
It's interesting to hear the word "deserving." When I asked IM/WTC about it, they said it was not allocated to my AG when the ratios showed my AG should have gotten the next slot, because they felt the other AG was more "deserving." Even if it resulted in F25-29 getting 1 slot per 16 starters and my AG (M45-49) getting 1 slot per 36 starters.
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [Richard Blaine]
[ In reply to ]
Yes, I don't have the exact numbers right now, but it ended up being something like F25-29 having 1 slot per 16 starters and my AG having 1 slot per 36 starters.
I think if one looked back at their race allocations, one would find that many, many people - likely mostly from large AGs have not been allocated WC slots that they earned via the procedure advertised by IM/WTC. They do publish the slot allocation procedure in the athlete's guide. They basically don't deliver on a set and communicated expectation that draws many people to invest in their product/event/race.
I think if one looked back at their race allocations, one would find that many, many people - likely mostly from large AGs have not been allocated WC slots that they earned via the procedure advertised by IM/WTC. They do publish the slot allocation procedure in the athlete's guide. They basically don't deliver on a set and communicated expectation that draws many people to invest in their product/event/race.
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [stevej]
[ In reply to ]
stevej wrote:
HuffNPuff wrote:
My understanding is that when slots are re-allocated from an AG where they are not taken (e.g., say no finisher in F70+), it must stay within the SAME gender. I.e., it goes to the largest AG in that gender, not to the largest AG in the entire field.
It does stay in the same gender but it does not necessarily go to the largest AG in that gender. It goes to the next deserving AG (based off the calculation).
Yes unless it has changed I got my spot based on this calculation at Ironman Melbourne. There was an advertised 15 slots based on starters but at roll down I was told that the calculation changed based on AG finishers and it dropped to 14. Sure enough I finished one slot outside the roll down until they got to the oldest male AG that had one competitor. He wasn't there and I figured if this was a calculation based on we were a large age group and must have just lost a slot that it may well roll to 35-39. Sure enough they said that rolls to 35-39 and I was already charging down to get my lei.
The irony was 99 people had been lei'd before me and they were one short and I didn't get lei'd but I got my first Kona slot.
Re: IM World Championship Slot Allocation Procedure [GoForward]
[ In reply to ]
Yeah, when it comes to KQ slots, 'deserving' is an emotionally charged term. Everyone wants WTC to change allocation procedures, to quit giving slots to various 'undeserving' groups, to be more transparent, and so on. There are plenty of threads on how it should be done. My general comment to most of these recommendations is that when people have enough money to buy WTC, then they can determine the exact allocation procedure and what they tell their customers.
#swimmingmatters
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
The Doctor (#12)