ttusomeone wrote:
This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with this country. Instead of debating the OPs point in a civilized manner, everyone just attacks them for having an opinion that's different and counter to prevailing opinions. To respond to the OPs question, I support equal payouts at this level because they are all professionals and as a private enterprise, Ironman has decided to pay equally.
I find it a more interesting debate at the local race level (speaking from a bike racing perspective and not tris), on the pros/cons of equal payouts. I've seen where I live that equal payouts doesn't necessarily draw more women to the races. In some case the promotors lose money on the women's field. So the debate would be should they lose money in the name of equal payouts, or base payouts on attendance (which I think was the point the OP was originally asking)? Personally I support a race promotors right to base their race's payouts on whatever they want, since it's a business decision and their decision can (and sometimes does) impact the number of participants they have (and their revenue).
To suggest that the women's Ironman World Champion, who raced the same race on the same course on the same day as the professional men - and handily beat a number of them - should be paid fewer dollars for that achievement is not expressing a contrary view, it is being deliberately inflammatory. Or, trolling, if you'd prefer to call it straight.
It's Sunday and I'm tired and I Just. Can't. Even. with the idea that people think that women have equal access to triathlon, and even more so in cycling. To try and address pay-for-attendance without also addressing historic lack of accessibility to sports (50 Women to Kona? Where's the women's Tour de France?) for women is to be so incredibly tone deaf and ignorant of history that I can't help you.