Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.[/quote

yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened

Thomas, I love hearing your crazy, triathlon related stories.

Formerly DrD
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No backdoor brag. Not hard to go over 30km in a school zone, or go over 50km on a slight down hill. Hell even some of the hills in Vancouver you can go faster than 80km on a downhill. There is a hill on my way to work that if I hit the light right and get a bit of a draft, I can get over 80km while commuting to work.

Just the reality that is when you carry a lot of mass on a 5'10" frame. Now getting that mass up the hill going home sucks.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
kny wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that you were issued a 4 minute penalty due to the race-provided lead runner bike escort? That has got to be the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard.

yep, exactly. really sucked, almost quit triathlon after that happened

Ok, that is severely fucked up. Almost as fucked up as Cam Wurf getting a position violation at the SavageMan bike while leading the race by like 10 minutes. Seriously, USAT official? Seriously?

Did you ever hear what the USAT officials rationale was? Did she think you were the prior leader and that you had been getting outside assistance and you were being penalized when she thought it was the prior leader? Or because the biker was clearing you a path and she considered that outside assistance? Neither is your fault and obviously the USAT official should simply swallow her whistle, but at least in the former case it can be chalked up to an innocent mistake on her part.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [BMANX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BMANX wrote:
Break the rules and get caught then you pay the price. I understand this every time I am going above the speed limit in my car or on my bike. If I am caught I have no issue paying the penalty.

Life really is petty simple when you follow the rules.

To me this is typical of these types of situations. Dude gets busted 4-5 times for outside help but grabs the attention of everyone with the chapstick situation. I know someone just like this dude.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [3Aims] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yep we all do and I work with people like this
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
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

That's part of what I don't get. Of all the discomfort, in all the parts of your body, that one feels during an IM, I'm surprised the thought of having chapped lips was even on his mental radar.

Long Chile was a silly place.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
davejustdave wrote:
stevej wrote:
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.

Nope, and please don't assume you know what I am referring to. I am referring to ILLEGAL drafting, not 10m out (or 12), not slingshotting during a legal pass, none of that. I'm referring to the peletons of 20+ blatantly sitting on wheels that are becoming the norm and that so many people just shrug and say "what can you do?" about, yet chapstick???!?!?!?!?!? "Now THAT. THAT is just TOO much!".

Classic ST moral relativism.

Im guilty of it too, but, FFS, chapstick? Of all the things to take a stand on the rules being rules, chapstick is about the worst Ive ever heard

Ok show me where on this forum someone said it was acceptable to blantantly draft (illegally) and not one person interjected in.

I'm with you that it's a bit much it being chapstick, but where do you draw the line? Like my other post stated, this just leads to more and more things. Oh it's just a gel.... 1 gel isn't going to give him and advantage......

Go reread the same posts about drafting you referred to.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [zeusrun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zeusrun wrote:
It's the responsibility of the athlete to know the rules. In the story, Mr Smith was quoted as saying,
"I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good."

During my 2 IronMan marathons, I would have liked someone to give me something to " make me feel good." It is an individual sport. Prepare for the race, bring what you need, or do without.

"Something that makes you feel good" is not a good metric to decide if something is legal or not. My wife gets a boost when people cheer for her.. to the point she said she wouldn't have finished some of her tougher races without the crowd support she recieved. Obviously you don't get that boost, so should it be illegal for people to cheer for my wife?

Things that provide an unfair advantage is a better metric, IMO. Along those lines, I don't think I've ever heard of someone pulling out of a race because their lips were chapped, or that unchapped lips provide an aero advantage, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davejustdave wrote:
zeusrun wrote:
It's the responsibility of the athlete to know the rules. In the story, Mr Smith was quoted as saying,
"I don't think it has anything performance enhancing in it, other than making me feel good."

During my 2 IronMan marathons, I would have liked someone to give me something to " make me feel good." It is an individual sport. Prepare for the race, bring what you need, or do without.


"Something that makes you feel good" is not a good metric to decide if something is legal or not. My wife gets a boost when people cheer for her.. to the point she said she wouldn't have finished some of her tougher races without the crowd support she recieved. Obviously you don't get that boost, so should it be illegal for people to cheer for my wife?

Things that provide an unfair advantage is a better metric, IMO. Along those lines, I don't think I've ever heard of someone pulling out of a race because their lips were chapped, or that unchapped lips provide an aero advantage, etc.

From Smith's mouth from the linked article: " "My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

He obviously thought it was helping him, that's the reason for the super secret spy drop. I'd say helping someone is a good metric
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [3Aims] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have yet to see this athlete/coach chime in on this string, but am hoping both he AND HIS CLIENTS are watching closely as a perfect example of what NOT TO DO when you are caught repeatedly violating the rules and disqualified as a result.

Not only did he know he was disqualified for much more than simply "chapstick", but he seemed perfectly happy to participate in that news clip (which has since gone nationwide) suggesting it was only chapstick.

He was caught, he was warned, and he was caught again. Finally, he was disqualified. And rightfully so.

My training buddy and I last night read the on-line posts over beers on this topic and drank every time someone said “impressive athlete/good job for taking the high road, so proud of your integrity (we drank twice for positive integrity comments), upstanding man, straight shooter, hope my kids grow up like you” and so on. What a deceptive #$%*! (would make a sailor blush)

So what happens next? He may not have argued with the refs at the finish line, but, he did something even worse - he participated in a lie that made the refs look bad, the sport look bad, and required an official response from Ironman basically saying this guy is lying in a very diplomatic way. More people who do not know a thing about this sport/IM triathlon have heard this story and thanks to this guy has intentionally given them an inaccurate view. A horrible view.

Nice job Coach! You may teach your clients not to argue with refs, but, what are you teaching them with this fiasco!!!??? I'd love to hear your response! Or maybe you can contact that news team again and have them do another story for you!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This story shows everyone how entitled some triathletes behave! He broke the rules.. The rules are the rules and this is NOT just about him using chap-stick courtesy of his wife. This is about him getting ASSISTANCE during the race on more than one occasion! Hello people....I read on FB that people were applauding him, saying he is a 'class act' coach. Really???!! He would not be my coach. He clearly lacks integrity. This was probably a publicity stunt to draw attention to himself.

I believe many triathletes (seems like it is more with IM distance) act as if they are entitled to everything. The rest of the world does not live like this guy. He rides what appears to be a very expensive bike and other gear (maybe has sponsors), drops a chunk of money on IM race entries, hotel/travel expenses is another chunk of change and then goes and cheats at the race (and gets caught). Boohoo he says.....

I say he got what he deserved.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Kat_Kong] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah. It's hard to know what this guy's entire deal is. It almost seems he's a little too casual about being DQ'ed.
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/


#chapsticklivesmatter



"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slow news day in denver? how does this even end up on the news in the first place...
alex
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Race1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Race1 wrote:
How long till we see tactics employed by outside assistance.

Main KQ rival 2 mins ahead? Get a friend to ride along side them giving them time checks and offering them gels. ;-)

While wearing custom shirts with their names. Nailed it

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Kat_Kong] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.

Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Afleet Alex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Afleet Alex wrote:
slow news day in denver? how does this even end up on the news in the first place...
alex

He called the reporter

I could be wrong but it looks to me like the classic "get ahead of the story" move.

He's a coach and knew word would get around that he was DQ'd for outside assistance. So, go to the paper and try to make the story about 1. Chapstick and 2. How nice he is to accept the penalty without complaint - which is itself a bit of a stretch since accepting a penalty without complaint doesn't usually include talking about it the next day with the head official and then calling a reporter.

There were a dozen or so people who got penalties at that race and accepted them, they didn't talk to anyone about how supposedly honorable they were to not complain or argue, they just took the penalty and went on their way.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [B.McMaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B.McMaster wrote:
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.


Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.
Where did it say anything about him drafting?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisM wrote:

From Smith's mouth from the linked article: " "My wife actually threw the ChapStick on the ground and I picked it up off the ground because we knew that you're not supposed to hand athletes things that could help them, and she was trying to be extra careful."

He obviously thought it was helping him, that's the reason for the super secret spy drop. I'd say helping someone is a good metric

Translation:

I clearly know what the rules are, but was in fact trying my best to work around them and get what I wanted and was hoping I could get away with it or nobody noticed.


Reality check, at the front of the race, everyone is paying attention, and no body likes someone that thinks they are somehow above the rules.

Bottom line, it's really simple, you carry everything you want with you or at special needs. Or you get it at an aide station from a volunteer. End of story. Second, friends, family, coaches can't follow you around. They can cheer and go from point to point and yell updates fro ma fixed spot. You can stop and talk if needed, but they can't run or ride along side.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

Haha, it's almost like 5 pages of discussion don't even exist!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Obviously he should've had her smear chapstick on herself and gone for the kiss...

yea, and then the lip lock would be ruled outside assistance.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [Run For Money] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Run For Money wrote:
Terra-Man wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted but didn't see it...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-area-triathlete-qualifies-for-ironman-championships-then-dqed-because-of-chapstick


Took chapstick from his wife. Outside assistance. Wow

Just plain STUPID. chapstick? come'on. Ironman taking itself way way to serious.

You really need to read the whole thread...

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R* [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ha ha. This made me laugh much harder than it should have.

Don't drown. Don't crash. Don't walk.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [T-wrecks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
T-wrecks wrote:
B.McMaster wrote:
Kat_Kong wrote:
I say he got what he deserved.


Not until all his customers drop him, but I'm guessing most of them are like him and probably ride about 6 inches behind the rider in front of them.

Where did it say anything about him drafting?

It didn't and neither did I.

I simply suggested that his customers probably cheat as well. I'd also bet at least a few of them (probably the ones that don't fire him) tend to push the limits on legal/non-legal drafting.
Quote Reply

Prev Next