I totally agree with IMNA on this. Racing badit puts the race, the organizers, and the sport as a whole in jepardy because of possible lawsuits, ie. the Alcatraz fiasco.

What I think they really need to look at is their refund and no waiting list policy. With IMs filling up in a week, a year before the actual event, athletes need more flexablility in pulling out of races, and signing up closer to the race. For almost all IM races, there is no shortage of people who would be willing to sign up, even a couple weeks beforehand, to make up for someone who couldn't make it. The administrative costs of deleting one person out of the system and putting someone else in is trivial, especially compared to the $400 they take are charging. Unfortunately, I am sure the love the idea of registering 2200 people and only 1700 showing up to race and just pocketing the money from the other 500. Someone else here also suggested a staggered registration. What a great idea, make 600 spots available 12 months out, another 600 6 months out, and the final 600 3 months out. They really need to start looking at it from the athletes perspective.

If you were able to get some of your money back, trade or sell you entry in case you can;t race, the problem of race bandits would probably occur a lot less.

if i understand your position on this, i agree with you totally. i'm not at all against banning someone for life. but there has also got to be some linkage between the penalty for a ban, and the refund policy. this is especially the case with high-demand events, like IM races and those races in a a race-underserved community like san francisco.

if i was a san fran athlete wanting to race within 150 miles of my local area and i also wanted to do an ironman, i'd have to shell out $1500 in entry fees prior to the year these races would be held just so i could reserve my position.

so then let's say i move, or i'm injured. then what?

USAT thinks it has already addressed this question. but it hasn't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I do not think the penalty is proportionate with the "crime"...

if you race an IM and get DQed for "cheating such as cutting the course (see the simpson episode at IM Germany 99 I believe where the guy went like 4h20' on the bike and 2h55' run with a good 20lbs to lose), having two persons racing (happened at Nice 98...there was a pic. of a two guys one on the bike one on the run, numbers were clearly readable and one was a black dude the other a white dude...I know the sun on the riviera is nice, but not that nice) or for using drugs, the penalty is a 2 year suspension.

the penalty for drafting which is much more of a problem then bandits (count occurences) is 3' or Dqed at the second time...

Truly, the refund policy thing is the very main factor of race "banditing"

no but your name is not on it. you can sell it and noone will care.
there is no name associated with the concert ticket.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of holding TicketMaster up as a model.

It is true that if there is no penalty for dropping a race after you've entered, then people will just sign up for all they can and deal with the scheduling later. Surely not a good thing. But there is a middle ground here. I agree with the idea of a waiting list for refunds, but I also think that full refunds are not a good idea. The RDs should be able to pocket some percentage of the entry fee of the original purchaser. I'm thinking 15-25% would be enough to substantially reduce potential abuse. This would also only be an issue for those races thay aren't in very high demand. So maybe there should be no refunds/waiting lists (obviously) unless races are sold out. I would imagine RDs would like this scenario. They could actually make more money than today by charging the same amount for entry fees, pluss making the percentage on the cancellations plus the additional revenue generated by the waiting list repurchasers.

The main reason I disagree with you, Francois, is that here in the good ol' US of A, a violation of this particular rule in conjunction with the risks inherent in the sport can lead to lawsuits which can have a severe negative impact on the sport itself and all of us participants. Aren't lawsuits grand???

I'd have to side with the Race Director here. I don't think it's the RD's responsibility to make adjustments to their entry process, if you don't like signing up a year in advance, don't do the race. I didn't race IMFL 1999 because of a medical problem that occured in July, so I KNOW how losing your money feels.

I like the idea of staggering the entries is a good idea, but I don't see a high-demand race going through the trouble. Sort of like a conversation I had with a RD a few years back. Back in the day, I was doing some stuff with USAT and we wanted to see a big race (in the region) get sanctioned. The RD's reply shut us all up, "Why would I go through all the extra work if my race fills in a week anyway?"

I think flexible refunds and staggering signups is great for beginning races; they will get more people signing up and (sadly) can probably charge more for entry, but IMHO qualifying races (like IMFL) are just too high in demand.

$0.02

-gc

so what in you opinion would be an appropriate penalty to an act that could potentially end the sport of triatlon in the USA? the insurance company has made it clear that if people are racing under false names and without signing a valid liability waiver they will no longer issue policies for the sport.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"on your Left"

We had this discussion on the old forum. At the time a San Francisco lawyer was arguing persuasively that the mandatory one year ban was arbitrary. He successfully lobbied for a discretionary ban, presumably to be less than one year.

I guess I don't understand the lifetime ban described above. There must be a lot more going on other than just being a bandit.

Am I right about my history here?

gee, I always forget that insurance and lawsuit thing...

my mistake

you are correct. however this ban has nothing to do with USAT. The ban was instituted by a race promoter, in this case Ironman for violating the terms of the written contract between the athlete and Ironman. Simply put, they will no longer do buisness with those 2 individuals and they cannot race in any event put on by Ironman.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"on your Left"

Well those banned certainly can't race under their own name but if they really wanted to race to they get someone similar to enter and use their wristband.

I'd hate to think of the retribution a banned person could exact on an IM event in revenge, though the idea of somebody nasty swimming off the coast of say Florida, with a shark fin on their back, is quite amusing.

The Ironman phenomenon has become too big, it's time to get back to the roots, except I would probably die. I only compete for the food these days(and Tom's stomach must pray for a long race!).

" the insurance company has made it clear that if people are racing under false names and without signing a valid liability waiver they will no longer issue policies for the sport."

i'd have to see for myself what an insurance company's representative has actually said before i take it as gospel.

to me, this is like buying an airline ticket. the airline needs, for reasons of security for us all, to make sure that the person buying the ticket is also the person flying on that ticket. but it would be onerous for us to all have to buy our tickets eight months in advance in order to get a seat, and have to pay top dollar, and have no recourse if we couldn't fly. as it is right now, the airline industry is big enough, and there are enough players, so that it's self-regulated, that is, competition takes care of the problem. our sport isn't big enough for that to be case, and the purpose of a nat'l governing body is to keep the sport flowing on an even keel, and to keep inequities and inefficiencies from occuring (as best it can).

yes, it's a problem when an RD gets a cancellation, just like when an airline gets one. there ought to be a penalty to pay. but it ought to be a fair penalty. that would solve the bandit problem. if the bandit problem was REALLY the problem USAT says it is (if its carrier REALLY is concerned about this problem) then USAT would be hard at the RDs to use a more generous -- and more uniform -- refund policy. the fact that USAT isn't tells me that it's doubtful that the carrier really takes this problem as seriously as USAT says it does.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Here in Atlanta, the Peachtree road race has 45,000 participants. The number of bandits is incredible. People will bandit $15 dollar races. This has always happened. Severe punishment is going to be required to get people to stop.

As far as insurance companies go, they will not refuse to insure an event. They will take the premium. Then, when an accident happens that involves a bandit, they will correctly refuse to pay any of the claims. The bandit was not registered, and did not sign proper paperwork so the insurance company is not liable for a claim. Then the race director becomes liable, and maybe USAT. Preventing bandits is, or should be, a top priority for RDs.

As far as race entry refunds. If they allow liberal refund policies, then these IM races that sell out in weeks, will sell out in a day. People will buy entries and make up their schedule later, getting refunds for the races they choose not to do. It will be even harder for the masses to get into races. There is a refund policy for IM events, and yes it is painful. I decided not to do IMUSA one year, and was hit for $200. I do not sign up for races unless I am going to make every effort to be there.

Something to think about: If I was in business, and I had a product that sold out in one week, leavning me with 51 weeks of having no product to sell, I would closely look at supply and demand and then jack the price sky high. Instead of selling 2200 entries and assuming 1800 would show up, I would sell 1900 at a much higher price and wait for 1800 to show. I bet at about $750 this would be how the percentages fell. 2200x400=880,000. 1900x750=1,425,000. Do the math. The deal we have now is not that bad.

---

---------------

"Remember: a bicycle is an elegant and efficient tool designed for seeking out and defeating people who aren't as good as you."

--BikeSnobNYC

From what we've seen on E-Bay re IMH, $750 might not be far off.

Bob Sigerson

I admonish each of you to wage a world-wide Jihad against these infidels, these invaders, these devils- the race bandits. These bandits are not "racers". They are, it is written, thieves and beggars. Cast stones upon them. We will roast their stomachs and dance on their bodies. Attack them at every opportunity with shovels and shoes. These race bandits are the scorn of our world. We will drive them from our swim starts. As I write this, there are no race bandits on this holiest of forums. They have been defeated. Dan Empfield (praise be upon him) would never allow such blasphemy.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Uk, ooh! You've had your usual 2 cups of coffee and cherry turnover this morning, haven't you?

I don't think its harsh. I'm against bandit'ing. Those that do should be banned in tri's and 10k's, marathons etc.

It's an insult to those that legitimately register, qualify, participate etc. in these events.

Boston Marathon is coming up and this event is known to have lots of bandits. There is a faction of people in the triathlon and running community that think it is very cute to be wacky, bandit, etc. This is a poor example and complete lack of integrity and shows very poor character.

As for the price if some triathlons I agree they seem somewhat high.

---

**********************
I was, now I will tri again!
...
Any time is a good time.
God Bless you my friend.

Ahhh, Yes, I have had them. I have dined at the holiest of altars. I have drank of the caffienated beverages, praise be upon them. They bring me strength in this holiest of wars we wage against the race bandits, the infidels, the stealers of other people's race spots. I will slay a thousand race bandits and bask in the grace of Slowtwitch as I take my rightful place beside Dan and Gerard and Frank, praise be upon them..... I need another cup of coffee.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

That's a strange question OT.

How can you be in the morning without two cups of coffee???

Besides TD has spent time in Europe, so he probably drinks some "real" coffee, meaning strong, no sugar no milk. Last time I made the coffee at work, it was all for me! ;-)

Is there any other way to drink coffee?!! I was just enjoying, nae admiring, TD's caffine and sugar fueled riff on an otherwise serious subject. Oui, ces't sa?!

I thought the way Tom used this somehow very familiar speech for the bandits was fun...

indeed, no other way to drink coffee...everyone out there and listening: milk and sugar are heresy! :-)

and it's "oui c'est ca" (with a cedille under the c)...
can't blame you though, the logic of the french language is illogical :-)

sorry! I am afraid that my French language skills are severly atrophied. They do not get much use, verbal or written, nowadays. My memory of the time I spent in Tours studying is still sharp though. And, remember the armpit hair thing that came up in another thread. When I lived there it wasn't an urban legend.

Back on bandits a minute. As a risk manager, the real issue is one of liability. As noted earlier, a bandit has not signed a waiver. So even the mitigating factor of having a signed waiver is not there. Although they are in the race "illegally" you just gotta' know that if they are injured they will contend that they had some kind of right to expect a safe course. And (this is the USA after all) there will be a lawsuit! A lifetime ban might be too harsh. But maybe a lifetime ban where you could earn back your elegibility through hours (and I mean a lot of hours) of race vouluneering might be a solution. Or am I just being too simplistic?

Whoa Tom!! I can't wait to read your daily editorial, now that you're all hopped up on coffee. Maybe it could be about race bandits? You're on a roll my friend! BTW, thanks for the link permission.

---

- Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke

I agree on this.

However, wouldn't it be simpler to prevent people from doing ridiculous lawsuits, for reasons that seem complete fantasy? it's really catch 22. "we" pay a lot
for insurance because "we" are allowed to sue for pretty much anything (although that could be the media giving us this idea).

In a previous post, I talked about a way to implement some kind of "transfer" of entry that seemed very doable. For the IM, have a page on the site for having a pool of cancelled entries for each IMNA race (this is not an issue in most other IM).
You click on it, decide not to race, pay a maybe 25% penalty until 6 weeks out, and 50% until a month out, etc...0% 3-4 weeks out. Then the entry is transferred to the "pool of reissued entries" for the considered IM, and it is also available on a first in first served basis.

implementation details need to be worked out, but this is very doable, could be all web based (for big races like IM races) so the excuse of admin. fees does not stand. IMNA would make more money, people who can't race would get at least a partial refund and people who couldn't enter could...

That is a good idea. New entries. New waivers being signed, etc. Looks like a win all the way around. However, remember you are dealing with (and I hate to put too fine a point on it) a bureaucracy here. Sadly, from my observation and having been involved in coaching at the college level before my current career as well as having been involved in the recent past with high level disabled sports, amateur sports bureaucraries are the worst. IMHO for the most part those who administer amateur sports are not there for the athlete but for the power they perceive their position gives them (remember I said IMHO and this does not apply to all administrators). So, to implement what seems to be a logical idea becomes, to them, a threat and not a solution.

As to the chicken and egg issue of insurance and lawsuits, that is one of torte reform. Our legal system is a much larger quagmire than Iraq, and unfortunately we cannot call in B52 bunker buster strikes on it. Although it probably deserves to be destroyed and rebuilt.

"You click on it, decide not to race, pay a maybe 25% penalty until 6 weeks out, and 50% until a month out, etc...0% 3-4 weeks out."

this is exactly what is needed. this, and to have it be more or less an industry-wide standard. this would also help the RDs, because as it is now most of those i talk to decide this on a case-by-case basis. therefore, they have to hear the sob stories and decide which is worthy of a refund.

it's also common for an RD to apply all the amount, or at least an amount greater than the refunded portion, to the RD's future race still open for new registration. having this be an easy solution that one could execute on active, signmeup, etc., would help solve the problem.

i don't know how ultimately enforceable a no-transfer policy would be if the alternative remedy is draconian. i don't know that USAT and its RDs are doing themselves a service by saying, "you have to register three decades in advance of the race you want to do, and you have no recourse if you can't race, except to risk a lifetime ban from the sport if you try to form your own recourse."

USAT is just tone deaf on this. i'm afraid they're going to risk losing court cases because of the inequity of it. they need to exercise some leadership, but they're so awfully scared of pissing off RDs by meddling with what is a profit center (you charge $150 or $300 for a service you don't have to offer) that they steer clear of the issue.

if USAT and RDs were to fashion a reasonable industry-wide refund policy, then the race-transfer problem would disappear. if you did have a reasonable remedy for race refunds, i wonder if you could also tag onto the process a transfer of liability to the seller of entry? what if, when you signed up, you agreed not to sell your entry, but if you DID sell it anyway, then not only would you be liable for a 2-year ban, lifetime ban, whatever, you'd also be the responsible liable party, since you're the agent of sale or transfer? would you sell your entry if in so doing you expressly accepted the liability, also agreeing to hold harmless the RD, sanctioning body, etc.? perhaps this is enforceable if there was a reasonable refund policy available to the race entry seller that he chose not to take advantage of.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Now He has spoken, praise be upon him, and so it is written. These bandits, these devils, they shall die on our beaches. We shall revoke their racing license and dance on their wetsuits in the transition area. We have acheived a glorius victory in His name against these bandits, praise be upon Him. The shall be condemed to the valley of Big Slam for their banditing ways. They shall forever be on shallow seat tube angles. They will roast without sunscreen, these devils, these race bandits. Jihad against them. More coffee please.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

"People will buy entries and make up their schedule later, getting refunds for the races they choose not to do"

perhaps you're right. but your model assumes that a full refund is offered. i'm not. i'm assuming that a portion, which declines as the race approaches, is rebated. i don't think it would be cost effective to enter everything on the schedule if that was the case.

yes, you're right, the deal we have might be a good one. otoh, let's say you are an RD, and you charge $600 because you've been filling your race at $350. there will come a point where your brand becomes a lot less appealing, and people decide that your competitor (which is sure to spring up) has a more appealing brand at $125 per entry. then you've got to backtrack, but i think the damage will have been done. i think RDs realize that, and charge as much as they can without overtly grinding their customers.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

ok, this idea is copyrighted. I hire oglethorpe for the intellectual property thing.
need to implement my idea, talk to my lawyer :-))

Dan, you are on the right track here. USAT definitly needs to take a leadership role on this issue, and I am disapointed that they aren't. Evidently they only see the problem as lawsuits, and the cause as bandit racers. They are missing the point that the real problem is high demand races filling up too early and athletes not having any recourse. USAT has to lead on this issue because it's not in the best interests of the RDs to fix the problem. Not to thow too many aspersions on the RDs, but I think they would love to sell/oversell out a race 12 months in advance, have half the people drop out because of a SARS outbreak, then cancel the race 2 weeks beforehand because of "unexpected circumstances out of their control", and say sorry, no refunds and keep all the money. Heck, they wouldn't even really need to plan on having the event, and not spend any of the money along the way. Obviously I am overly villainizing the RDs here. IMNA tried to appease everyone at the IM Utah debacle, but imagine if they had decided that the swim was unsafe, oh, and while were at it, it's too windy on the bike, and why bother just having a marathon, so thanks for coming, you can sign up for next years race at the table in the corner.

Francois, what's my cut of the royalty?

Also, TD, one word PROTEIN, and lots of it. Although I'm not sure we want you to stop. You seem to be having so much fun.

let's see...
I take 15% of entry fees from the IMNA and you get 33% of it.

IMCdA+IMLP+IMW+IMC+IMFl =5 races.
2200 entries per race, that's 11,000 entries.
times $375 is 4,125,000 + say 20% of extra money
due to penalties + reassigning entries is 4,950,000.
I get 15% that's $742500 and give you a third.
$247500.

gee, that's pretty decent :-)
I would stop working... :-)

$125 is a half IM entry fee. I thought we were talking full IMs?

There are other IMs out there. They are not nearly as successful IMNA's races, with much lower entries. The IM name is certainly one reason. The quality of race, and all race festivities, is certainly another. You are always free to start one yourself......

Using a punitive refund policy, there are still many athletes buying entries and not showing up for races. If you make it less expensive to do so, you will only have more entries bought by people who will later not want them. People need to plan their entire season, and sometimes offseason, around an IM event, and need a long time to prepare. If they are lucky enough to get an entry somebody decided they did not want a few months before the race, they may not have time to train for a good race. Easing punitive refund policies makes it harder for people who may really want to race to get an entry, and have time to prepare. It makes it easier for people who may not really want to do a race to hold an entry they may not use.

Remember, USAT has to balance the wishes of athletes and RDs, but in the end they will grow as an organization with more races sanctioned. They will tend to be more supportive of the RD's wishes because of that. USAT needs races to sanction to be viable. Races can exist and be successful without USAT sanction.

---

---------------

"Remember: a bicycle is an elegant and efficient tool designed for seeking out and defeating people who aren't as good as you."

--BikeSnobNYC

Here, here for the USAT taking a more leadership role. You bring up a good point here. Utah is a good example of the USAT dropping the ball and not protecting athletes. Though this is again somewhat villianizing, by not taking any action (at least none I observed as a participant at Utah) USAT set a dangerous precident. They effectively said that its ok for a RD to shorten or cancel a race, deliver less than they promised, still profit as if they had put on the race, and tough luck for the athlete. I thought the USAT was here for US - the athletes.

I know there are plenty of rules from the USAT that govern athletes during races, but out of curiosity I checked out the USAT website for rules for RDs who are putting on a USAT sanctioned race. All I could find was a page of "suggestions" with a few requirements thrown in. Someone please tell me that I'm mistaken and simply didn't search hard enough and there are more extensive regulations out there. My understanding was that the USAT's function is to govern the sport - all aspects of the sport. If these "suggestions" are all that the USAT is doing to help endsure quality and safe events then IMHO they aren't cutting it.

Just an added thought. I don't think the USAT fee is that much. I'd gladly pay twice as much if it meant they could truly ensure quality races by having stricter governing over the races that they sanction.

--- I know there are plenty of rules from the USAT that govern athletes during races, but out of curiosity I checked out the USAT website for rules for RDs who are putting on a USAT sanctioned race. All I could find was a page of "suggestions" with a few requirements thrown in. Someone please tell me that I'm mistaken and simply didn't search hard enough ---

Check out the document http://www.usatriathlon.org/Event Sanctioning/2003/Requirements_Guidelines_2003.pdf You can get to it from the main page: USAT Events, then sanction application, and its listed under the first section. It includes about 90 requirements and 30 suggestions for any sanctioned race. Take a look - it's quite detailed.

In addition, on that same page is an event evaluation. I'd recommend filling one out for any race you're been in. And do it for the Good, not just the Bad and Ugly.

Jihad against these bandids. I condemn them.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com