Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [bujayman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?

I could be wrong but I didn't think you could do any of that. I thought it would be considered outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriTamp wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


I could be wrong but I didn't think you could do any of that. I thought it would be considered outside assistance.

can't do that. you can "leapfrog" but *i think* feet have to be on the ground as is no running or riding beside someone racing



---------------------------------------
Fruit snacks are for winners
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't see pacing mentioned in WTC's "Outside Assistance" rules. Just in the USAT one. But what constitutes pacing? Assuming the women in his run photos on the bike is his wife, she looks to be a good amountbehind him. I feel like I see the Spectator/spouse doing something like this in almost every race, trialing behind offering words of encouragement. Is that pacing?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ubdawg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ubdawg wrote:
I don't see pacing mentioned in WTC's "Outside Assistance" rules. Just in the USAT one. But what constitutes pacing? Assuming the women in his run photos on the bike is his wife, she looks to be a good amountbehind him. I feel like I see the Spectator/spouse doing something like this in almost every race, trialing behind offering words of encouragement. Is that pacing?

Yes it is

And doesn't there have to be multiple violations? Outside assistance is not a DQ first offense but a time penalty
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?

I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

You don't have the wherewithal to type out husband, but you can go all caps on totally?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


I forgot about the pacing gorilla thread! This just made my Friday!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TH3_FRB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TH3_FRB wrote:
bujayman wrote:
You're allowed to ride next to or behind a rider just not in front of aren't you?

Isn't it because you can't be pacing them?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ext_to_me._P4597045/


I thought it was pretty big of Dave and Mark to pace this gorilla guy. Glad they didn't get DQed.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Goosedog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Goosedog wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

You don't have the wherewithal to type out husband, but you can go all caps on totally?

TOTALLY

hubs was the full lenth word. No idea what "husband" is.

Where I scrimped was shortening "wifester" to "wife"
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SBRcoffee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcoffee wrote:
Just wait, he will receive no sympathy from the gang here at ST, and they will likely demand to see his medical files, to see his reasons for requiring said chapstick........... ;)


Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [skip] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hahaha


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did see the official on the run course. He was at the end of the walnut street pedestrian bridge near the start of the second run loop, or turn to the finish. When the 2nd place female came by, a friend of hers ran along side of her for a short period of time. The official sprinted down the street ready to give her a penalty or DQ her. Guess he had a last minute change of heart. He explained to the friend that she couldn't run along side any athlete and I guess that was the end of it.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
said athlete also calls that "integrity"
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [tightcalves] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tightcalves wrote:
The official sprinted down the street ready to give her a penalty or DQ her. Guess he had a last minute change of heart.

Or realized it was hot as hell and didn't want to chase her anymore.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
albertok wrote:
i don't know this athlete but my friend was in the finish area at that protein shake tent when the head official was talking to this guy. his wife not only dropped stuff on the ground for him -sneaky- but was riding along with him for something like a mile. he was actually given a penalty on the course for all of this, which i think should have been a DQ on the spot. right? he was then seen again with his wife still biking along side of him and then they DQ him i am the first to jump on wtc and call BS but seems chapstick guy left out a few/many important details of the day when interviewed by news crew. wild thing too wife was standing outside of the finish area with bike and helmet

so he was given a penalty prior to the penalty for the chapstick? If that's true then I feel even less sympathy for him now.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
How hot was the wife?
Or, How hairy?

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why didn't he put it in his special needs bag and/or fuel belt?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [TriTamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ffips] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Or why not just run with chapped lips??!!

You gotta be pretty tough to rise to the top of this sport. Dry lips is way down the list of things to get (illegal) assistance for


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
TriTamp wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
TH3_FRB wrote:
From the news report - "I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good," said Smith.

I don't know about you guys, but anything that helps me feel good/better during a race is a welcome advantage, as small as it might be. Did it make the difference between KQ and not? Unlikely, but where do you draw the line?


I agree!

It should TOTALLY be illegal for you to be allowed to even see your wife/hubs/child/pet alongside the course, as that might give you an emotional boost and unfair advantage!

And cheering? Don't even get me started on cheering. Cheering is cheating unless the cheerers are fellow racers.

Bike packs are ok though.

enforcement of outside assistance and drafting are not mutually exclusive. This athlete knew what he was doing was against the rules but did it anyway.

So do people who draft, yet soooo many STers don't come down on drafters nearly as hard or even call it "strategic racing" or "a tactics choice". Others even say you have to do it to be competitive....

All the shades of grey on one type of cheating make the black and white on this topic somewhat comical.

Have you seen all the threads on drafting recently? Or all the threads after every single IM brazil and florida about drafting?

You do know there is a such thing as legal drafting? It is completely within the rules and what you are probably referring to.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's hard to believe a guy who trained 15-20 hours per week for the past 6 months would just accept a DQ if he didn't do anything other than the chapstick incident (which he got a time penalty for). Pretty certain there is more missing from the story.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisM wrote:
And as one would expect.... not the whole story. Whole thing sounds fishy to me....

http://303triathlon.com/...ed-kona-slot-due-dq/

This guy is so full of schitt.....He clearly got what he deserved.

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

Prev Next