I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I personally will not participate in a 140.6 race like IMMT with wave starts that put women last because I am a slightly-over-an-hour swimmer but mid-pack bike and back-pack run. On the 3 mass IM starts I've done, I've loved having all the fast boys (and girls) pass me all day, including their cheers and wolf whistles (the pix of them staring at my ass in Penticton are priceless). Starting in the back means swimming past a LOT of slower boys but seeing a LOT fewer people all day, which is much less fun for me. On the other hand, I am a big advocate of equity in competition -- but I think if you seed/start early and swim over 2:20, you mathematically have less time to finish the bike and/or run to make the 17-hour cutoff, since you are not an official finisher if you are over 17 hours regardless if it is before midnight or not, so there is some balance there already; everyone has 17 hours distributed over the 3 disciplines. And I also feel, competitively, I am racing with the women anyway, not the men, so as long as we Xs all have the same requirements, I am okay with not having exactly the same rules.
In practice, maybe someday someone will invest in a timing mat at the end of the swim that will beep red if the person's time is over the cutoff, and that person could be stopped at the swim finish, or change tent, or the mount line of the bike course. I've worked T1 change tent twice including crazy Tahoe -- past 9:00, the "crowds" exiting the water are thin even on a rolling start and a person >2:20 could be identified by the Grim Reaper (as my friend who works for WTC calls it) at one of those 3 points, I'd think.

The half-cheeky, half-real answer....swim faster so it's not an issue.

I'm not trying to be super elitist here or lobby one way or the other....but that's the only way to make it truly a non-issue for everyone.

I don't think a mass start is the greatest answer because it's not the safest answer.
I don't think a wave start where women go first is the right answer because some/most will get pummeled by the faster men.
I don't think a wave start where men go first is the right answer because we then pummel the slower men.

Unless there's a mass start there's always going to be someone with less time to get to the line before midnight, unless there are then those that have a longer time to get to the line by midnight - at which point there would be bitching about that & STILL the drivel about inequality.

I'm a swimmer, so I really don't get how/why it takes 2:20 to cover the distance unless there are truly extenuating circumstances like weather or surf that hinder everyone to a severe degree. I would be willing to bet money that some coaching & training can get 99.9% of the 2:20 people down to where it's not a major concern to make that cut off.

I'd rather the sport be as safe as possible & there be a few instances of inequality, in my own personal opinion.

If you think the wave starts need to be eliminated, what's your proposed solution then? Standing up for "equality" without proposing a viable solution is just more meaningless drivel.

---

AW

Probably wouldn't sign, for at least two reasons. First, if someone does like the rules/conditions of a particular race, there are always other races to chose from. Second, I fall in the camp of "if you're that close to missing the cutoff then you probably shouldn't be out there."

---

No coasting in running and no crying in baseball

From an equality perspective, I would sign it; I believe that gender (amongst other things) should never be a basis for segregation...hell, I think that women should be allowed in all military combat-arms jobs, if they can do the job.

However, I think that we'd be ice skating uphill on this one. Based on the existing rules, there is a clear bias towards the faster (male?) athletes. Speaking as a slow 40+ male age grouper, I doubt I would ever finish in 17 hours, even if I started with the pros. But to have such a separation of start times really does seem unfair.

What about this counter proposal: each IM race spans two days. For local sprints with an indoor pool component, I have to submit my expected swim time so they know what wave to put me in (so no one gets run over). What if entrants to an IM race did the same, and half competed one day, then half the next (with no separation by gender or age, but simply by expected time)? Sure, you're not racing directly against everyone all at once, but then are you really if there are different swim start times?

As these races gain in popularity, the field is going to have to be divided somehow to avoid injury and inequality as you noted in your original post. This might make things a little more balanced.

Just a thought. :)

---

- John
"Have courage, and be kind."

The administrative - not to mention costly - nightmare that would create is unfathomable.

Think about how many personnel, how many volunteers, how many sheer logistics there are to operate in IM course in ONE day...there's little to no feasible way that can be done for multiple days....mutiny would ensue.

---

AW

In Hawaii there is an open water swim series and for most of the races there are 2 starts, men and women. They rotate through who starts first. The last couple races have a mass start because they are .o get and fewer people do them.

Some of the 70.3s rotate their wave starts why can't they do this at Races where there are just 2 waves, men and women? Why do the men always get to go first? There ate just as many (actually more..because there are more men ra I g) that are slower than the fast female AGers. It might require more draft marshaling at the front end of the women's AG race because the faster men will roll through, but I do t think it wiould be much ore, as there are usually faster cyclists who happen to be poor swimmmers that roll through the front of the female AG race now

This isn't just limited to WTC either. The petition might be something to push at USAT.

I'm a female, a very (painfully) slow swimmer, but I probably can't sign at this point. I'm not convinced this is a gender/age equality problem. My issues -

1. Why is the time cut-off contradiction? Because the slower women don't get a full 2:20 after their takeoff time? It doesn't seem like a contradiction to me. While it's true that some swimmers will get "less" time than others, this rule isn't there to arbitrarily punish women because of our gender. It probably has to do with realistically making those 17 hours.

2. This isn't the only IM out there. A better solution would be to choose a different race and vote with your feet.

3. That said, if you're intent on doing this race and you know the rules, best to prepare as much as possible. I mean I know that if I didn't make the cut-off I wouldn't be upset because of gender inequality; I'd be upset because I fucked up. That's just me though.

4. I'm not sure that a petition is the way to go. I'm not sure that it would accomplish much, if anything. If you have a problem with the way this race and others in the WTC is run, it may be a good idea to ask the race director why the things are the way they are. Maybe they would be willing to reconsider the wave situation for next year? Also I'd straight up ask about the SwimStart initiative.


Good luck.

---

---

My triathlon training blog