You're right... the numbers do make the difference. There were around Thanks for actually explaining why I'm wrong in a way that is logical... there were about 100 more in the age groups than Clydesdale on average.

Which makes the competitiveness for a Top 10 of the Clydesdale categories about 1/2 to 1/3 of the regular age groups.

You just don't get it do you? You have taken a shot at just about everyone and everything...why don't you go for religion next, your on a roll. You can say whatever you want but use some sort of restraint in an open forum.

I am still waiting for you to start the thread about how much of an expert you are on diet and nutrition so everyone can be enlightened.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and write off your attitude to being young and brash. However, you just keep on digging a deeper hole.

Out of curiosity - how do you make it through the swim being all crowded like it is?

I think you have accomplished your goal with over 1000 views in this particular thread. Why do you think this is such an interesting thread?

This will have been a success if people talk about the issues raised... and then make some changes that will improve safety and allow for competition. Also to ensure top age group triathlon is about really being the best your age and make sure winning a prize is something that one must work for and can take pride in... every finisher is a winner.. which is why we give finisher's medals. Finishing is about finishing. There are some of us who actually race triathlons.

I realise that there will always be some people who will resist change to the end, and others who will turn discussion into an emotional mudlsinging contest and make the rest of us sound awful because we think that maybe new athletes shouldn't have a place at one of the country's most respected age group triathlons.

The sheer number of personal attacks and highly emotional responses has made me wonder if I was successful. There were probably others who thought that there was a grain of truth in my statements, but were afraid to speak after the personal flaming that I recieved. I made it clear in my initial thread that I was willing to engage in a rational discussion about what I saw, even to the point of being willing to talk to people over the telephone or over e-mail and only one person even e-mailed me, and he did so in support. I'm not an anonymous troll, I'm a concerned racer.

I understand your intent was not to troll, denigrate clydes, TNTr's, or those who are not racing tri's. You had safety issues at St A's that were potentially threatening to you and other racers. You want it addressed, fixed. You want to be able to put the hammer down and have a reasonable chance to work through the pack, just everyone obey the rules and its all good. I'm with you if I understood you correctly.

I think you made mistakes in your delivery. The "tone," and that certainly is a subjective view, came across more than a few times as elitist, arrogant. I've made similar mistakes where what I've e-mailed was not loaded with anything, at least from my perspective, but it sure was not perceived that way. I wonder if those who were challenging you were just trying to turn up the volume so you could hear!? Frankly, I'm trying to turn it down, only so that you might take another look at the responses...see if they have any merit. Take ownership where you need to, don't where it doesn't belong. I'm not trying to be patronizing... I think that most people are usually intending for good stuff to happen and some times it turns to crap, we get defensive, I've been there too, and more crap happens. Thanks for listening. Chappy

As I've said before, I agree with your concerns about safety and participants following the rules. And while not in danger of winning any races I enter, I can assure you that I RACE every race as a RACE. You seem to act as if you're taking the moral high ground and are disgusted by the personal attacks of other posters. Need I remind you that you began this entire discussion (in your St. Anthony's thread) by calling a number of us "fatass" and further implying that we are unsafe and unskilled participants who are unwilling to follow the rules? Maybe some of the responses were a bit too personal for your taste. But I can assure you that many of us felt that you posted with a complete lack of tact in your original post. People who treat me in person the way you treated me on this forum usually end up with spit in their face or a smack on the mouth.

So again, I completely agree that there is a huge issue in triathlon associated with safety, overcrowding, ignorance of the rules, and often unwillingness to follow the rules. It also seems like we are going overboard with the number of awards categories out there. Let's remember, after all, that triathlon is a racing event! So as I agree with many of your grievances, I completely disagree with and am offended by the manner in which you chose to express them.

At some point somewhere down the line someone is going to point out Zincs obvious attitude issue and offer an adjustment if this even remotely indicative of his personality.

Sometimes it does not matter how right you are, if you cant communicate the message its meaningless.

While Zinc may have had some points he lost any credibility in the delivery, this goes for the TNT'ers, the Clydes and the newbies alike.

If you wish to get people on side in life, assasinating them in public or private is not the way to go about coalition building (war reference :))

You could have got this going and had everyone on side, as it is, my guess is half the people think you're a complete ass having attacked them personally and the other half might agree with you but find you conceited with an inability to communicate.

Your message was lost as soon as you chose to denigrate people........

Yeah, I did make it sound too emotional and too uptight... something I did to a degree intentionally to increase the response to the inital post. I didn't count on people being so negative, and I now realise that I lost a lot of credibility in not being cooler.

There were some good points raised, and I will no longer complain about Clydes in the first wave. I'm going to write a pleasant e-mail to the race director tomorrow and point out the problems that I saw on the course and some ways to solve them. If I feel so inclined then I'll actually post it on this message board so that people can see that I'm not some crazed, elitist cyclist who likes to do triathlons...

No worries, chappy... people who know me actually realised that there was something up when I made that post. I think it's best to make the mistake of being overly inflammatory on slowtwitch.com and not at some point when it really matters. I'll work on delivery ;-)

Cheers

Alex

Bing,

I said that PEOPLE underestimate their calorie input, not just overweight people.

If you are calculating your input as accurately as Lance Armstrong does then you are a rare person but I'll believe you.

I know a lot of fat people who aren't lazy, you may well be the same as them, I'm prepared to accept that you are.

Unfortunately however either your measuring or your understanding of the energy input and output is going wrong somewhere. If you use more energy than you consume you will lose weight. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are or how much you weigh. Your metabolism will only effect the amount you lose but you WILL lose.

If you're using 500 calories more than you consume then where is that energy coming from, it can only come from your body.

If you don't lose weight in those circumstances you are contravening one of the laws of energy(the second I think). "Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another". I have to draw the line here. Asking me to believe this really is too much to expect!

One of your calculations is wrong, either input(easy to calculate) or output(difficult to calculate).