Very pro because they know they need to put food on the table. Being a pro means being smart about what you can accomplish and how that will effect the future. 35th in Kona doesn't do anything for you compared to pulling out and getting a podium in say florida.

i suspect that paula and heather are at least as involved in this as is andrew, maybe more so. you may well be talking about a disagreement between current kona pro women and former kona female winners.

this is the problem with this discussion. ironman's interface with its pros (all it's pros, men and women) are 3 women. it's hard for current women pros to dismiss heather and paula as misogynists. i think that the quality of the conversation could be better than it is. i think this is, or could be, an opportunity to rethink a number of policies re the athletes and ironman.

in 1991 the pros got exactly what they wanted, because for the one time in triathlon's history they had one spokesman and a united front. if that actually happened in this case i'll bet the pros would be very happy with the outcome and, i suspect, ironman would too.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Hi Dan, thanks for your reasoned response and looking back you're correct, my responses appeared angrier and angrier, when what I intended to be more and forceful (different from being angry, but that's not your problem, if you felt I was angrier then that is the affect I had).

I feel that media has a strong influence on what is accepted as the norm in sport. It generally influences lots of women's opportunities across industries....in my professional world we continue to struggle to attract and keep top women's talent in the semiconductor world....the glass ceiling, child rearing related responsibilities and it being a man's world run by middle age men, all largely conspire to keep women out of positions of power...just look at the executive suite of the top 25 semiconductor companies globally and it does not reflect the performance of girls in maths and sciences in high schools.

I stand by that ST can do more to advance women in sport in general. Just on the Kona 50/50, it would have been fairly simple to take the firm stance right on the front page that 50/50 is harmless to the overall numbers in Kona and the right leadership thing for WTC to do.

Instead, ST put up a poll and, while endless debates will happen, just like we had endless debates in the case of Lance, from an Editorial position, ST could have done something as firm as what Herbert did here: http://www.slowtwitch.com/...re_Anymore_3322.html.

Let the debates happen, but simply declare your support, as imperfect as the implementation may be, the perception of equal number of pro women can and will go a long way.

Where does Paula stand on this topic? We don't know. I'll ask and apply pressure, not that my pressure as an age group man means much. But as she was there in the fight in early days with Erin Baker for women pros rights in tri, I'd expect her to be pushing hard. But perhaps she is not....being someone who worked hard, was genetically blessed for the long races and had a ton of success in Kona, perhaps she may have less sympathy for the second tier pros (perhaps a bit like Rinny today) and might want to keep the Kona start line more exclusive.

Here is the crazy thing. Very few women are race race directors of the top large triathlons in the world. Perhaps the exceptional scenario is on the big island of Hawaii. You have Diana Bertsch running Ironman Hawaii and Jane Brockus running Ultraman Hawaii. So you said there are no women designing bikes to interview. Our sport is nothing without race directors (bikes are useless without races for us to use them in if we care about competition), so how about another round of interviews with these two remarkable leaders who provide the very venue for us to compete in, which essentially drive the soul of our sport.

Finally, I strongly appreciate that you have put up a forum catering to or female peers and run camps for them, so keep building from that.

How do we more strongly engage in pulling in new triathletes to our forum and our community. I think a starting point would be to have more basic articles on the front page on how to train, and manage the juggling act of family/business/sport. An ongoing series of tri 101 article way beyond the advanced stuff like calibrating power meters or installing latex tubulars or which tires have lower Crr. Simple things like,

• "what is a brick, and when do you want to do it".
• "Overcoming your fear of the swim start"
• "I finished my first sprint tri, what is my path to my first Half|
• "Do I need to run a full marathon before my first Ironman"
• "What do I need in my transition bag at my first IM and how do I get through that"
• "Walk me through my first Olympic tri"
• "I am graduating from a road bike to a tri bike, what do I need?"
• "How do I do a sport specific block, when and why in my season"
• "My family says that these 3 hour rides are too long, how can I get fit without them"
• "Do I need to ride 6 hours and run 3 hours every weekend for this stupid first Ironman?"
• "Do I really need to do every masters swim workout, do the club ride and TT and run with the track team every week?"

....and so on. We have plenty of guys on this forum who can help us write any of these. I'll step and write you 6 over the summer. We've all had these questions (you and I back in the early 80's, so no real reason for people to have to figure this out all over again". 20 minutes and they are done. If you have front page topics that address the simple challenges of new triathletes, you'll eventually pull in more new guys and gals. Right now the front page does not touch on these types of basics. The topics are quite advanced...that's fine of you want to exclusively appeal to advanced athletes, but seems you want to be more to the less advanced.

I can understand the reasoning. What does a RD get from a pro who DNFs? What does a fan get from a pro who DNFs? What's the value of a pro who DNFs?

Is there another sport where pros quit when they're getting beat?

Or should all future comparisons to other sports cease? Including media attention, pro pay, etc.?

This response is more devil's advocate than anything. While I understand any pros reasons for quitting, I think it's a valid part of the larger discussion. No disrespect to any pros intended.

But apparently quitting when you lose is only "pro" in triathlon. No other pros take their ball and go home.

And that says nothing about the value these DNFing pros add to the sport.

Runners do also and I would assume other endurance sports do also. As mentioned previously most triathlon pros don't get a salary, this isn't football. If you lose you still get paid, in most major pro sports you get paid even if you don't play. That's not the case in pro tri. The vast majority get paid by doing well. Doing bad for the sake of finishing makes zero sense. We've had this discussion before on here, some people seem to not understand that pros aren't getting paid just for showing up and ironman doesn't pay deep enough like other pro sports. As soon as everyone gets paid, like hyvee triathlon was originally, you'll see less DNFs.

It's not about adding value when you DNF it's about making sure you can eat and pay rent next month in some cases.

"it would have been fairly simple to take the firm stance right on the front page that 50/50 is harmless to the overall numbers in Kona and the right leadership thing for WTC to do."

dev, the reason why i didn't run a front page editorial in support of 50/50 is because i wasn't sure what i supported. i support the effort made. i supported the idea of the pro women in particular, and pros in general, and people in general, gathering behind an idea they thought was important to them. that doesn't happen enough in triathlon.

i talked it over with herbert and jordan. it seemed to me appropriate to have equality in numbers, but i wasn't sure, and still am not sure, what the numbers should be. and, should there be other changes that would benefit the pros (deeper prize purse, in particular) that might be rolled into one change.

because i had no strong sense of right, i thought it better to shut up and listen to what others had to say, interview others, and see if i heard arguments that made sense to me. but there's a huge shout down going on, and those with different opinions (including pros, both male and female) are afraid to speak.

lord knows i have opinions, but on this particular issue, the only opinion i can rely on is the one that nobody wants to hear: that ironman and LTF are heavily tactically invested in the Women for Tri initiative, it's sitting out there begging to be used as a point around which the advocates of equality can get what they want. but that would mean subordinating a good shouting match to gaining the desired result, and right now there's too much invested in the shouting. i don't think the women pros are shouting, but they've sure got a lot of other people doing it by proxy. i just don't see this as a hard problem to solve, but it's tough in the current atmosphere.

what i would be happy to host on the front page are opinion pieces by some of the affected pro women, and pro men as well, which i think would help find a proper solution.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm pretty sure Grant covered this. I don't have anything to add to what he has said. Your POV will likely not be changed by even the most reasoned example.

This is, though, a good example of why a lot of pros, women especially, don't come to this forum. At every turn we have to deal with the people who say pros have no value. Turn around and there's a post about a pros bike shoe slippers. Or there's a post about why so and so didn't finish. Any number of other examples.

This is not directed explicitly at you, but the point was made somewhere above about the presence of women on forums vs. facebook for example. This forum is largely anonymous. Many times you have to have thick skin to be here because there is always a bigger asshole on the internet. Someone who will argue simply for the sake of arguing. And if Dan/Jordan/Herbert police the forum more, then they are in the tough spot of being accused of censorship.

People have no problems whatsoever being rude, especially if their name is not attached to their posts. Years ago 1 female pro caught hell on this forum for phoning it in, but still finishing, an Ironman. She was accused of not respecting the sport by actually finishing, and doing so by finishing with an age grouper who was also at the same point in the race. She were chastised for still FINISHING the race. Pages of it. Then she came on here and owned it. And the response was typical, a bunch of the same people who were giving her hell pages before were now singing her praises.

That is why pros and a lot of women don't want to be on this forum...or many others for that matter.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

I mostly agree, aside from the fact that it is about value when there's opposition to gender equality, minuscule pro purses, and the complete elimination of pro purses from certain races/series. And many AGers claiming pros do not matter.

Adding to your point, though, pros are also paying to participate.

A couple necessary comments:

I'm vocally feminist here.

I'm a fan of pros and feel they do, in fact, add value. Including you. Every time I read/heard you interviewed, I think, "I like this Brandon Marsh guy."

I don't think women aren't posting here because somebody may question a DNF.

My name is Mike. I live in Ohio. I'm a librarian by profession and a slow AGer by hobby. I am anonymous only because I'm nobody of note in triathlon. But just ask if you want to know more.

You referred to my POV without understanding my POV. Clearly you understand that there's a discussion taking place about the value of pros. I was just asking how DNFs add to the value, especially given such high DNF numbers at Kona.

I hope nobody takes any of this as rude.

Brandon, I know many folks, male or female, who will not post of ST, let alone read it based on, as an example, the crap that is allowed to happen to folks like me.

I run a FB group at the HOA where I live. I have moderated it for like 10 plus years. And lately it has gotten pretty large. With size has come a lot more issues with some folks thinking because they are behind their keyboards they can attack other folks opinions. I do not allow offensive language. I do not allow personal attacks. Some want to accuse me of censorship. I say great, go start your own group and see how many join. I had a few folks that no matter how many of their posts I deleted, or I tried to work with them off line, they could not be civil. Since I deleted them, the forum has been much calmer. More folks are posting. And less folks are leaving. They have been invited back if they can just follow the simple rules but the worst ones just continue to attack me behind my back that I am a terrible person and no way will they come back. Since my group was their only platform for attacking the board, their loss. :)

So having a civil forum has nothing to do about censorship, IMO. It is do you want a forum where folks feel they can offer different opinions than the small bully group believes in? Why should I not be able to talk about powercranks and not be attacked? Why should I not be able to talk about what kind of training I do as an older athlete and might work for others and not be attacked? Etc. Etc.

IMO, women are much smarter than men. They do not need the BS that most guys dish out. They just leave. Whether it is in a forum like this, or in the technical work place like I used to work, they just do not take it. Most have no Ego. They do not need to strut their stuff. They try to find common group, not my way period.

I made a huge effort when I was managing an engineering group to have a 50/50 split between women and men. I cannot tell you how hard it was to hire this many women, let alone keep them. But once I have this 50/50 group of women/men, boy was the dynamics SO MUCH better!!! I had never before or sense seen any engineering team have a 50/50 team since most males do not understand the importance of having an balanced team and do not care.

Why over the years have so many owner of companies been chased off this group? Again from what I have seen, it is the bullies have been allowed to just attack these folks with nothing stopping them.

So until basic changes are implemented that ALL folks, female or male, pros or AGers, product owners and users, are allowed to have a civil discussions about opinions with debating rules, the smart ones, starting with most women, are smart to stay away from this forum and go to others which have a better control of not allowing bullying tactics.

Let the attacks begin to help make my point, again. :)

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Dan, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but here's how I'm hearing your argument: That you believe the logjam is caused by the shouting on behalf of pro women. Which makes me curious how you think people should instead respond to a basic injustice.

1. Last summer an attempt was made to have the discussion. Ironman countered with a divisive and inherently unfair polling of pros.
2. After Kona another discussion attempt was made. Ironman countered with complete silence.
3. Proponents of equality ramped up the volume. Ironman countered with complete silence.
4. Proponents of equality became louder still. Ironman countered with a cowardly passive-aggressive infomercial explaining how age group kona spots are filled, slipping in one sentence that slot allocation would stay the same for 2015, giving no explanation or acknowledgment of the pro issue.

When you see a basic injustice, and the powers that be refuse to even publicly acknowledge it, do you really think that quietly acquiescing is the way to get change? That women should just behave and play nice, and not upset the apple cart? Because that's how your words come across.

If you want to know where the anger comes from, here it is: This issue further exposes the cronyism and good ol' boy network of middle-aged white men who run triathlon and are scared shitless to let any fresh blood in. It is so incredibly apparent to everyone who's not part of that network, but it will be denied forever by those in power.

Every single gender and race inequality in the US over the past 100 years has had to resort to shouting. And it's because the white male network refuses to have discussions in good faith, and instead will turn itself in knots trying to find "performance based reasons" why equality shouldn't exist (ie: "women shouldn't vote because they're not as educated!", "Blacks shouldn't get into college because their test scores are lower!", "Gays shouldn't be parents because they'll be bad at it!")

What triathlon really needs is a leadership (media, industry, RDs) who will shout from the top of every hill--"Yes, we support equality! And we will support women and women pros who are fighting for it. And we'll accept that maybe we don't even know exactly what equality looks like in triathlon, but we'll start by changing the simple easy things that are no-brainers."

To do otherwise is to perpetuate that inequality, and to do it in the cowardly manner that's been used for the past 100+ years in this country.

Does the fact that there are less than 3 female pros for every 5 male pros matter at all?

There are 256 female pros and 438 males. If WTC took 1/2 of all male pros at Kona, would you demand numeric representation equality for women, which would be effectively each and every female pro? So, 50% of male pros and nearly every female pro can go. That would be the same equality you are so adamant for now. Absolute number representation, not proportional number representation, no matter the disparate nature of the selection pool.

I've asked it before in this thread. There is a point at which numeric equality does not make sense given the great disparity in the total pool size by gender. So, where does numeric inequity stop being discrimination and start being common sense due to such disparate pools.

10?
20?
35?
50?
100?
200?
256?

This is the exact twisting-yourself-into-knots that I'm describing. Why do we need to even discuss your bizarre scenarios? They're not on the table, so let's not confuse the issue at hand. Virtually everyone agrees that in the common sense range we're discussing (30/30 to 50/50), equality makes sense. Why debate irrelevant, imaginary scenarios?

"I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but here's how I'm hearing your argument: That you believe the logjam is caused by the shouting on behalf of pro women."

i think you put it close to right. shouting by those on behalf of the pro women rather than by the pro women. i think what's hindering the process is the shouting by everybody in sympathy with the pro women or, maybe better put, a specific segment of the pro women who want 50/50 as opposed to some other (equal) number.

i don't think the shouting is THE cause of the logjam, but i do think it's an aggravating factor, and that it's going to hinder, delay, maybe forestall, whatever the eventual resolution could be.

"do you really think that quietly acquiescing is the way to get change? That women should just behave and play nice, and not upset the apple cart? Because that's how your words come across."

i know you feel that way. but i don't agree with your assessment. i don't think quiet acquiescence is the only alternative to shouting. i think that's the typical binary choice that is the hallmark of internet shouting matches.

"This issue further exposes the cronyism and good ol' boy network of middle-aged white men who run triathlon and are scared shitless to let any fresh blood in."

my problem with this is that ironman's outreach to pros is tasked to 2 former ironman winners. both women. responsible for a lot of ironman victories in the pro ranks. i'm not defending ironman's approach or posture to this. i'm not defending its position. i'm just saying that there are voices that could be heard - including paula's and heather's voice - but there's not a lot of room right now for those voices to be heard.

"What triathlon really needs is a leadership (media, industry, RDs) who will shout from the top of every hill--Yes, we support equality! ... To do otherwise is to perpetuate that inequality, and to do it in the cowardly manner"

this is why, i think, we're seeing monologue and not dialogue. if i don't say exactly what you want me to say, in the way and manner you want me to say it, i'm in league with the oppressors. what if a pro female triathlete actually felt that 50/35 is correct? or that 25/25 is correct? or that 50/50 is correct, but that we ought also to honor, in a robust way, ironman's request for help in its outreach to women? where is the space for that voice, in the current atmosphere?

i have seen WTC turn on a dime. i've seen, and been privy to, some real internal wrestling matches, and i mean people wrestling to figure out what's right, both among each other and each person wrestling with an issue personally. i remember when andrew was wrestling with whether or not to allow lance to race during an open investigation, and USADA was arguing to actually allow him to race. there wasn't a lot of "what's going to play best" going on. there was an actual struggle for what's right. andrew - representing i guess the old white men - allowed his own best guess to be overruled by people like paula, heather and (i think) welchie, craig alexander and those with skin in the game.

based on my experience, this is exactly the kind of topic where WTC is not relying on golf-playing financiers in new york to make this decision, it's likely relying on the counsel of former ironman winners - men and women - like those i just listed above. the question, to me, is what do you want? what is your plan to get it? i don't think a facebook circle jerk equates to selma. it doesn't take courage to stand up to ironman. it takes courage to stand in the dock and say, "let's keep our eye on the ball." it takes courage to stand in between, hold a palm up to both sides, and create a dialogue that seeks a resolution that gives each side what it needs, even if that means taking flak from the shouters.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Virtually everyone agrees that in the common sense range we're discussing (30/30 to 50/50), equality makes sense. Why debate irrelevant, imaginary scenarios?"

just, point of order, no. there is a view, and an argument, in support of 35/50, or some other number that is still proportional. you just aren't hearing that view, because there's nothing to be gained by anyone who ascribes to this view sharing his or her view.

i'm not saying i agree with that view, but it is rational, it is not racist, sexist, nationalist, misogynist, or any other ist. it might not be, in the end, the best resolution, but it is a rational view.

me, i am always more interested in the process than i am in the eventual outcome, because i think the process begets the best outcome. to me, the process is dialogue, debate, and a civil airing of the issue. i don't think you are prepared to be a part of that civil airing. am i wrong?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't find the question at all irrelevant. The question is valid as to at what point numeric equality does not make sense. When females have 58% as many pros yet receive 70% as many Kona slots, one could easily debate that they are being preferentially treated, not biased against.

Also, your arguments of discrimination in society (blacks, women, gays) would be more apt if women were being forced to race a different distance or a different course or were given lesser prize money. None of these are true. Your analogy is essentially the same as telling Harvard that they must matriculate the identical absolute number of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians despite the fact that the selection pool for these is very different.

Now, maybe WTC should try to figure out why there are so many fewer female pros and address that root cause. Some people think that giving females greater representation at Kona will do that, but I doubt it. Maybe giving females 50% of all AG slots would, but adding female pros 36-50 will have little effect on the masses.

Kny...the main reason there are less women pros than men pros has entirely everything to do with the barriers society puts up for women in sport. Now you want to use the lower number of woman pros to justify less women pro access to Kona. Isn't that like me saying, "well, 1% of the semicoductor industry is women, so 1% of executives should be women" (by the way, I picked 1% randomly, it might be several percent higher than that, but not really that huge)....yet in high school girls fare just as well as boys in science and engineering, so its not for lack of intellect that there are less women in the industry...likewise its not for lack of genetic sporting potential that there are less women in the pro ranks. Once you realize that, you'll hopefully park all your crazy justifications for reducing women's access and get pull yourself forward into this century. On this topic, Ironman is largely behind many organizations.

Dev, I think one of the more interesting points that Dan keeps bringing up is WTC does have 2 women in positions to get this to happen. But since they seem to be totally silent,
one has to assume they support no changes. And if this is the case, well, I would love to hear why they feel this way.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I am with you on process in general. I think the process that should be followed for sport in this century at the championship level is providing women pros the same access as male pros to our world championships as is done in many other sports.

• IAAF world championships 100m finals. How many men and women in the starting blocks of the 100m? Are they the same?
• FINA swimming world championships? Same deal?
• Tennis Grand slams? Same number of men and women all he way to the finals?
• In our sport ITU World Championships and Olympics ? Same deal?
• ISU figure skating? Same deal?
• ISU Speed Skating? Same deal?
• FIS Downhill World Cups? Not sure, but there seems to be the same number.

The list is pretty extensive. Other sports have gone with the a process that basically says, "at the championship level, the field size for men and women should be the same, so let's set up a qualifying process to fill it". Should Ironman Hawaii not have the same theme. At least in 2015 I hope so.

When I was going through the Armed Forces training in Canada, it was in a time when women finally had the opportunity to become Fighter Pilots and Infanteers. That was 30 years ago in the 80's. Joan Benoit was winning the Olympic Marathon. Grete Waitz, Allison Roe and their peers were tearing it up in New York and Boston. They were beating a path that was transforming opportunities for women in sport. It just seems like we as a sport are still way behind the times with the current allocation in Kona.

What's the right number that ST should have had an editorial on. The right number is whatever number of men pros that are in Kona. If that was 50, it should be 50 for the women. I would have expected an editorial stance to be along the lines of "Messick, make it equal, you have 50 guys, so you better have 50 women". Now if he and his team want to change the number of guys to 60, 40, 35, 10 or 5, then fine, match up the women's total. I'd personally like to see it be 50 of each (or even 60, I think a bigger field will make the racing more exciting with more blowups and aggressive tactics on the swim and bike even though most have zero chance to win, but I digress).

But I expected a strong leadership editorial position for straight out equality. No analysis paralysis on justification for unequal numbers based on things like depth of field, size of female pro field, size of overall female field etc....that just perpetuates what's wrong in the first place.

It's still not too late. You can still write that piece based all everything you have read here, on the internet, on the reader comments on Ironman.com and come up with a strong leadership line in the sand.

David.

1. I don't think anyone will argue against the basic concept of equal numbers of women and man should be in the race, whatever that number is . . but

2. The professional class of triathlon has far bigger issues than this that it's facing ( That it lacks any real big-picture value to the races being #1)

3. To think that having 15 or whatever more women racing in Kona is going to help grow the sport, with all due respect is a bit disconnected from the reality of how women are inspired and encouraged to get into the sport.

To extend #3, where I see that REALLY happening is the races that I work at as a Race Announcer, for the ReCharge With Milk Triathlon Series in Ontario. They have these very short basic triathlons they call Give-It-A-Tri's There are 5 - 6 of these races throughout the year. There are 200 - 400 entries depending on the event. Many doing their first triathlon. I would say in a number of these races 2/3's of the field are women. It's doubtful that any of these women know much about Ironman or who the top Pros are. It's this sort of low-key, peer-to-peer type of situations that we need to see more of. That's what will encourage more women to get into the sport.

In fact, if we are JUST looking at inspiring and encouraging women to check out and get into triathlon, Ironman's own Iron Girl races probably do a pretty good job at that - low key, lot's of peer-to-peer encouragement.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the game, but still would like to reply.

I stand by my use of percentages of the field - only this way we can properly compare different field sizes. (Have a look at the section on "Time differences" in my post on the "Depth of Fields".) Here's a simple way of explaining this: Take the men's Kona field (roughly 50 starters), then randomly remove 15 of these from the results (assuming "off-days", mechanicals, being sick in the week before etc.) Obviously, this will increase the time differences between the finishers .. roughly speaking by 15/50 - so it isn't fair to compare the 10th in the original field to the 10th in the thinned field, but probably the 10th to the 7th in the thinned field.

As I pointed out earlier, the reason you're hearing shouting is that Ironman, and the triathlon media, has for the past 8 months refused to have a dialogue, debate, and civil airing of the topic. Had anyone the decency to engage in the issue, the discussion wouldn't have degraded to the point it is now.

You want process and dialogue? How about noting, even once, that it's been inexplicable and cowardly of Messick to not publicly address the topic? Instead, you blame the people who are yelling at him about being silent.

I've learned that the best way to defuse a volatile argument is to take away the most virulent sticking points--especially the ones that are of no consequence. While someone may indeed have a logical-in-their-mind reason why, in 2015, there should not be equal kona slots--I challenge anyone to identify a meaningful consequence of giving 50 women spots this year.

That action--that one simple action of no consequence--would immediately defuse the standoff. And it would allow for the more complex discussions of things like, why don't women get the same swim warmup time as men (Oceanside)? How to prevent pro men from getting mixed up in the women's bike? Paying real money 30 deep at Kona. Etc., etc.

That Messick won't make that one inconsequential action speaks volumes about him and his ego, and volumes about the media and industry that won't criticize him for it.

You are right that Paula and Heather are part of the problem, and in my mind that's all wrapped up in the cronyism deeply ingrained at the top of the sport. It's why we shouldn't create "Iron Legends" of people who've done nothing more than perform well on a race course, and it's why we should be skeptical when they're installed into positions of power by a man with an agenda in an industry closely guarded by insiders.

"It's still not too late. You can still write that piece based all everything you have read here"

is it okay if i wait until i have all the data, see all the arguments, think about it, before i render an opinion? is it okay that i don't have an opinion, yet, that i feel is seasoned enough? bear in mind, dev, that when i write an opinion piece and stick it on our front page, it's not just me saying "here's what i think." it's me saying, by inference, "here's what you all should think and here's the action you should take." i'm not ready to take that step yet. i don't feel that i have reached the point where i'm comfortable telling everybody how they should think about this.

if you look at the recent history of my opinion pieces, it's usually how i think we, at slowtwitch, can and should do better, rather than asking others to do what i want them to do. for me to tell you not just the bike you should buy, but how you ought to approach a moral question, requires (for me) a great deal of personal security in what i'm advocating.

i don't have that personal security yet. even if you do, i don't. i'm still working through how i feel about it, and that's why the ONLY thing i'm certain of is that the dialogue and debate should be of a high quality. and at the moment it isn't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

They even went so far as to set up an "independent" advisory board comprised of women and Hilary Biscay promptly resigned implying this was pure theater.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project