dcrainmaker wrote:
Philb wrote:
It is simply logistics. You need to build a course of between 6 and 8 laps on the local roads, ending up with a course around 40k. Marathon courses can be flexible in their start position, triathlons need to start and finish at a body of water (unless split transition). So within the criteria they ended up with a course of 43k, which would be preferable to a course of 36k if they had only 6 laps.
I just don't buy that though. The Marathon found it's way back just fine to the start (after 3.2 laps) to be the correct distance. The triathlon bike course was a looping out and back. They could have sliced it down to 6 laps and slightly extended it at the far end.
I hear ya on local events (though, really, I don't) - but we're talking the Olympics here. If not a place for getting the distance standardized - why bother at all?
It's like IMNZ. In the past few years (2006 and 2012) the race has been shortened to around 1/2 distance. Those are the only two years Cameron Brown hasn't won it in the last 12? years?
Getting the distances right is important. Some athletes come from behind and others have a sprint finish. It the course is short or long, by even a little bit, the wrong athlete (for lack of a better term) may win the race.
At an event like the Olympics, there is NO excuse for getting it wrong? Imagine having the swimming pool being too short or long? Or the 20kg weights for the weightlifters being too heavy? Yeah right. They got the marathon right so surely to all that's Holy, they could get the Tri course the right length.
With modern technology, they should be able to get the finish line with millimetres of being exact!
TriDork
"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"
