Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! *Updated including response from Jimmy R*
Quote | Reply
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


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Last edited by: Terra-Man: Oct 1, 16 3:24
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He broke the rules and got caught. He even knew what he was doing was against the rules, that is why his wife dropped it on the ground and he picked it up.

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SBRcoffee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[url=https://imgflip.com/i/1bj9oy][/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]via Imgflip Meme Generator[/url]


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is how it starts...

First its chapstick, then sunscreen, then a salt tablet, then a gel, then water, etc, etc.......

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. Ridiculous.

Long Chile was a silly place.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Obviously he should've had her smear chapstick on herself and gone for the kiss...


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed - chapstick may seem trivial, but a rule is a rule.

At least he accepted the ref's decision without whining about it on ST (as most STer's would do) and moved on. Great example to his athletes.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I totally take responsibility for the decision because it was a conscious decision that I made asking for it," said Smith. "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."

It's kinda like dealing with my kids... Sometimes they try to hide things from me because they think it's wrong even if it's something trivial that I don't care about. But what does this say about intent? Do they think they're breaking the rules and try to get away with it anyway?

But... this whole thing is silly. I can't imagine how tough this DQ is to take.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [SAvan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah he accepted the ref's decision...I woulda given her some lip


Coach at KonaCoach Multisport
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I totally get it wasn't performance enhancing but I also understand the race rules and the officials not having to worry about deciding if this outside assistance is okay and this other one not. And the throwing it on the ground for him to pick up. They knew it was against the rules and risked it anyway. And lost. Sorry.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
maybe it was a cortisone cream?

Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
"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."

So by "careful", he really means "sneaky".

Yeah, it seems trivial, but he knew what he was doing was against the rules and he tried to sneak around it, got caught and DQ'd. Oh well....Full credit to him for not arguing with the official and just accepting the penalty, however.

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: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The most important question is if he would have KQ'd w/o the chapstick?!?!?!
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [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

Rules are rules but this is as bogus as its gets for the AG level, even at KQ level. Still, props to him for just going with the rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Terra-Man wrote:
Yeah he accepted the ref's decision...I woulda given her some chapped lip
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
First its chapstick, then sunscreen, then a salt tablet, then a gel, then water, etc, etc.......


1. I am amazed that any official saw this. I do not recall ever seeing officials on the run course. How did he get caught?

2. Maybe the slippery slope is what did him in. A tube of chapstick is similar in size and shape to a tube of BASE salt. Did the witness think it was salt?

Also M40-44 had 4 slots, not 2 slots as said in the article. I would have thought the video would include a finish line shot of him to "prove" this time (at least approximate time).
Last edited by: mdm81: Sep 30, 16 7:27
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [mdm81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree, very very unlikely and unlucky a ref saw this.

That said, he says "we knew it was against the rules" and then did it anyways. I think he's very unlucky, but also fine with the penalty.

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?
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

And the plot thickens!!!

Wow just wow.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How hot was the wife?

Not that this is important in the context of the DQ, but inquiring minds want to know.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [Terra-Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anyone have wind tunnel data comparing wearing chapstick to not wearing chapstick?
Quote Reply
Re: Would be KQ'er DQ'ed for ... chapstick!! [albertok] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I heard this similar story too from an another person who was intimate with the decision of the DQ. Definitely a lot of other important details that were left out in the TV interview. Essentially the chapstick hand off was just the icing on the cake of several other infractions and warnings of outside support he was caught receiving.
Quote Reply
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?


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


Last edited by: TH3_FRB: Sep 30, 16 8:16
Quote Reply

Prev Next