They may have increased the prize money pool because there are significantly more events the but prize pool has not risen at the same rate as events have been added. For example, Lake Placid in 2006 was $425 to enter. This year it is $725 representing a 70.6% increase in registration fee. The field size has also grown since 2006 by 10-20%. Yet the prize purse is now 50% less than in 2006. WTC is now bringing in about $980,000 more for 2015 than in 2006.

An argument can be made that the other $25k was provided to another race. But that race sells their spots at $725 so it should fund itself.

Fleck and others; im one of the least-qualified to speak on the subject, but isn't this what wtc is already doing with the championship races (north american champs, asian-pacific champs)? the races with a larger point value attract the best pro field?

Yes but they could shift in that direction even more.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Didn't IMLP this year only have something like 11 pro women? I'm super happy that a friend and local pro won the 7th place prize but looking at it objectively - should 7th out of 11 be rewarded? Sure they raced just as hard as the winner and likely put in as much work to prepare but...

One solution, prize money should not only be available to pro's. If you are AG in top 6, you should get paid. Being labeled pro/elite in a race should just be a luxury to have you up front when the gun goes off.

Volunteers that join as groups do get some money that goes to the group.

$800? LP NEXT year is $725 and most races last year were $700. It is so amusing when people rail on WTC and then inflate the cost of registration.

I don't see how this would help anything?

Why wouldnt we know about them? If there were AG'ers kicking their ass when they were in their first 2-3 years, what makes them feel like they should be racing as a pro while that was happening? Why wouldnt they wait until they were the AG'ers kicking ass and then turn pro?

Regardless, the only difference between those Pros getting smacked by AG'ers and those top tier AG'ers is the amount of time to train and recover. Should those AG'ers decide that it was okay to live on their parents/friends couch and give up their desk job - to train full time - they'd also be "prominent" pros in due time. Probably even sooner. All they'd need is time and perseverance (and some guidance from you).

But they'd do that knowing they'd be walking into a profession that pays them pennies. Its no surprise to anyone who wants to turn pro that they're paid shit. This sport would exist just as it does currently if pros went away entirely. The AG fields will still fill up. WTC would still collect all of our money. We'd still spend senseless money on bikes. The kona carrot would continue to exist for AGers. Its the same reason that pros are "okay" with the money they currently make and why other brands havent caught on in the same way that WTC has. They have the holy grail of the sport. Which was created by a group of "amateurs" decades ago.

A triathlon pro does not earn money for WTC in the way that a {insert nearly any other professional sport} player fills up arena seats. Or sell jerseys, and shoes and beer and food. Unfortunately, for pros, the model of this sport is simply different. They indeed work very hard. No argument there. But to what end? Who are they making money for? I think thats what Dusty continues to champion. And no matter how fast a pro goes or how great they champion WTC or their sponsors, WTC and their sponsors still will make, arguably, the same amount of money.

Moral of the story being - cut out gluten at least a week before your A race.

---

"One Line Robert"

It wont help the prize purse issue, but would probably push faster race times knowing an AG can take their money. I think the AG who got 7th in this race deserves the money.

People are overfocusing on long course races. Doesnt the lifetime olympic distance series pay more?

Consider how much money was made filling up those seats in that arena. And then ask yourself how a slow pro helps make WTC any money at all?

---

"One Line Robert"

Regardless, the only difference between those Pros getting smacked by AG'ers and those top tier AG'ers is the amount of time to train and recover. Should those AG'ers decide that it was okay to live on their parents/friends couch and give up their desk job - to train full time - they'd also be "prominent" pros in due time. Probably even sooner. All they'd need is time and perseverance (and some guidance from you).//

Ya, that is the only thing holding AG'ers from being as fast as pros, time in the saddle. You should try it sometime and see if you are right…

And AG'ers do not beat the pros. SOme top AG'ers having a great race can have faster times than the slowest pros on a given day, hell some slow AG'ers can beat pros that walk it in rather than DNF'ing. But they "NEVER" beat the pros at the front of the race having their good day. It is like watching some pro bowler have a really bad game and bowling a 140 something. We can all sit in our chairs and say wow, i could beat that pro. I can bowl more than that 90% of the time, all i need to do is go bowl more and i could be on the circuit. NOT

You took my words out of context. I was referencing those same pros that Stover was saying would kick the ass of the bottom of the pack pros for the first 2-3 years of their career. Those AG'ers obviously have some talent - since they're able to hold a job and potentially a family together while training to a level that allows them to race faster than the bottom of the pack pros at a given race. I think we refer to those types as "sandbaggers" right now.


ETA: You cannot tell me with a straight face that there arent people racing as pros, who carry an elite USAT card, that are no more exceptional than the top AG'ers. And those are the people I'm referencing.

---

"One Line Robert"

How did pros KQ back at that time? I truly dont know. That would seem why.

I really like the idea of only a select few races offering prize purses (4-6 per 70.3/140.6, per year). The grand slam of triathlon - or at least WTCs version of it. This should concentrate the talent at only a few races - which would keep those bottom of the pack pros from ever becoming pros. And reward those who are truly exceptional at the sport. Qualifying for Kona would then be somehow tied to performance at these select races. Or potentially, if these races all paid 10 deep, everyone who was in the money across all the races gets a ticket to Kona. For an even bigger and deeper prize purse.

---

"One Line Robert"

If they never turned pro in the first place


Pro racing and AG racing is very different in the demands, especially in the beginning of the bike. In AG racing you leave T1 and sit on a power number.You pace yourself in the run to get through it with the least amount of difficulty as possible.
Pro racing isn't like that unless you come out by yourself. In the Ag race you are trying to get to the finish in the fastest time possible. The fields are smaller the drafting effect is less . In pro racing you are trying to get to the finish line before anyone else. The tactics are different. The race is different and first year pro's often have a harder time adjusting to it.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I have a local friend that won $5,000 last weekend at one local "Amazing Race" put on by the local Salvation Army chapter.

I love bashing the WTC but the lack of pros is in part prize money, but more its the fault of USAT that made getting a pro card for iron distance racers extremely hard, and also added the "re-qualifying" rule which was hugely slanted against iron-distance pros since we only race 1-2 times a year in races that qualify and those tend to have a few guys at the front that are WAY off the front so unless your in the top 3-5 keeping your pro card is impossible. (a side effect of this is ex pros gobbling up kona spots, so AG athletes have a stake in this).

The lack of pros is really is a USAT problems, more than WTC problem, this really hurt other races too like Rev3 when they had pros and Challenge. Again, I also think it hurts AG athletes that want to go to Kona.

The solution is a fund of 5-15k for pro development and put up 3 pro purses of $5001 so top AG athletes can get pro cards, and current pros can keep them. Neo pros could also race and get paid and this could serve like the continental races do in the USA for cycling. I think smaller races like HITS or independent ones like Beach 2 Battleship or Rev3 could also get on board with this because it would get them some attention and they would be helping the sport. I think fans of the sport might enjoy seeing where the future stars are coming from too rather than them getting lost in the noise of places 10-20 places at some events.

---

http://www.johnhirsch.org
http://www.stronglikebulltraining.com

Hmmm... extending a pro license is easier than earning it in the first place. Every 2 (is it now 3 years?) they have to have finished one race within 8% of the winners time in a race with a total prize purse of $5000 or more. You state that this is extremely difficult for long-course athletes, but if in 2 years they did not once finish within 40 minutes of the winner, (about what would be required for most IM distance races) then re-thinking their career might make sense, no? And They can always enter a smaller race once every two or three years where they do not have to get within 8% of Mirinda Carfrae, but just some other MOP pro.

I think when people are talking about the "lack of pros" they do not mean more people should *be* pros, but that when a race pays 6 places and there are only 8 racers it is kinda silly to demand that they pay 10 deep. But of course there is the chicken and egg question, but also that there are just so many events that it dilutes the fields. Especially in IM where you can only race a few times per year.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I don't think you can look at the quality of many of the athletes that don't finish within the 8% winning time and say they shouldn't be pros. These are athlete who are amazing and at the top of the sport and filling in spots 5-10 of 3000 person races.

I have another major issue with the 8% re-qualifying rule, which is that if the winner is doping few if any will finish within that time as doping generally gives an athlete more than an 8% advantage. Thus to stay pro you have to 1) fully trust that the winner is not doping or will be caught. 2) dope yourself. I think that kind of "do or die" rule sends the wrong message. Making the prize purse super top heavy also creates this incentive which I think is a mistake.

---

http://www.johnhirsch.org
http://www.stronglikebulltraining.com

Two things.

I am unsure if you are saying there should be more pros in the sport or there should be fewer of if you are kind of saying both? On one hand I see there being too many pros right now, so I don't see the barrier of entry being quite high enough. I don't know how high to re-set that bar. But, I also think that you can make the argument that there are almost too many races given the lack of pros at some. So, chicken or the egg. Too many races, too few pros? Too many pros? which is it? I agree that when you look at a race lake IMLP, IMUK, IMWhistler, and a host of others (70.3s included) that it's fair to say that the field was small so there aren't enough pros. That is a result of, I really believe, the cascading effect of the KPR and which athletes end up 'needing' to race a late IM vs. those who are essentially safe for Kona.

Bringing doping and re-qualifying as a pro into the equation opens a whole can of worms that would deserve its own post. Your last paragraph casts a pretty wide net. You have something to base this on?

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

But they only have to get to within 8% of the winner once every two years, not every race. Certainly they can find a race that has no Kona podium finishers or super-fast dopers to enter once every 2 years. They managed to earn their pro license which requires that they do that 3 times! So the bar for keeping the license is significantly lower than earning it. If a pro is never finishing within 8% of the winner in 2 years, how much money would such a pro earn per year? Like $1000? Wouldn't it be better for that person to fight it out for the AG title instead? Not that I want more guys in the 4:05-4:20 range to worry about for 70.3 qualification :P Actually, I take that back. Racing against more fast people would be fun!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

The position around here seems to be that pros are in a completely different race, therefore they are filling in spots 5-10 of a 10-20 person race. You can't have it both ways.

@Brandon: The sport has grown and I would suggest that you can't shrink it, and that there will be more and more races, so we need more pros to fill the races. There are 300,000 people in USAT and less than 300 of us. I think the bar is very high and the supply/demand or races/pros is a sign of that. We don't have a p/1/2/ system (maybe we should?) so I think it makes sense to have more pros.

I based the 8% comment on research on the effects and effectiveness of PEDs which seem to provide a 9-12% boost in performance. Since we have had positive tests, confessions, and suspensions, sadly I think its fair to say they are in our sport. So I suggest we made rules that discourage its use, not encourage its use.

@row2tri my point is that if your an iron-focused athlete that gives you 3-6 races to meet the standard. These races have a top international star or several and rarely are more than 3-5 people are within the 8%. If you think that only 1-3 people in a 3000 person race should be pro thats fine. I disagree and think spots 3-20 are likely pro level and the point of this "stunt" was to show how serious of an athlete 7th place was and that he and she should be rewarded for that. Under USAT rules that result won't be good enough to keep his/her pro card most of the time. I think thats a problem for pros and the sport. When the rule was written it was written by USAT which all but ignores iron distances races and is hyper focused on the olympics. There are many oly distances races with lower pro purses and weaker fields and athletes can race a dozen of them a year and sooner or later re-qualify. Not so for iron distance athletes.

I think thats not good for races and pros and for developing American pros. Keep in mind pros from other countries have different standards and most are much easier. I think this puts us at a disadvantage compared to other counties when it comes to creating pros, fostering dreams and talent in America and with American athletes.

---

http://www.johnhirsch.org
http://www.stronglikebulltraining.com

You've just given me a great business idea: a race series designed to qualify people for their pro cards. Here are the basics:

• Sprint distance, held twice a month through the season.
• $5001 prize purse.
• Pays 100 deep; $50 each for the first 100. If there aren't 100 people, the race keeps the remaining prize money.
  
• Entry fee is $500.
• Entry fee for anyone with an existing elite card is $5000.
• Bare bones race amenities. Maybe a banana at the finish line.
  

If I find 50 relatively quick age groupers who want to buy their way into a pro card:

• I collect $25,000 per race, and pay $2500 in prize money.
  
• After production costs, I net $12k per race.
  
• Twelve races in the season, $150k/year.
  
• Plus 20-30 new pros per year who will each pay WTC $800/year.

Win, win, win. The only question is: how much would I have to pay off usat to not de-sanction the race series?

I may start a twitter handle called @Pay100deep.

## of pros. We disagree. Chicken and Egg. Is the number of pros too few or are the number of races too many? In my opinion there were a lot of entry and experienced pros that could have made money (any money) doing Rev races. It's unfair to say that Rev wasn't a marquee event since they invested so heavily in the pros, but until another race series makes a compelling push to pull pros away from Kona...or the media helps or whatever...WTC is the main event. Challenge as well, but they've got a bit more global traction. So, that's a number that we can disagree on.

Requalification. Your point made to @row2tri is well thought out. I can see that argument.

Requalification and Doping. I think that is a stretch argument. It is fair to say that it is in our sport. We don't know how much it is in the sport, especially in the pro ranks. See the UCI for an example. So, until there can be some real transparency, we just don't know. As opposed to cycling which is fairly/unfairly painted as dirty rather than clean, triathlon is the opposite right now fairly/unfairly being painted clean rather than dirty. Again, that's a topic for another thread I think.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

I think one thing which is forgotten here is that for quite a few amateurs its finacially better to stay amateurs than going pros as their sponsors prefer them to go to kona than not qualiyfying for the pro race.
The reality is and this is not really talked about in this thread that often a top ager gets as much or more sponsorship than a tier 3 pro and many people that would be inclined to race pro stay amateurs becasue of this.
So the truth is there is really not much intensive to go pro . ( for some it works out better to be pro for others better to be agers)

A lot of people on slowtwitch seem to think that pro means full time athelte and ager working full time, this is very far from the truth and can be completely interchangable.

Is it too easy to get a pro card or is performance not valid in tri? If we use the old 8% IM rule. The female marathon world record is 2,15h, the 2012 olympic female A standard was 2.37h I mean this is close to 15%. A female marathon runner that runs within 10% of the world record time ie 2.27.30ish can be a full time runner. Personally, i think that A standard is way too soft at the same time this is what it takes to go to the olympic games as a marathon runner in many countries in the world and should it be easier to go to the olympics than racing pro in Ironman ?

I totally agree with what desert dude said, that athletes need time for development The solution could be a rookie pro purse which is paid out to pros that took out a pro license in the last 2 years and after that if you havent made it ...











Two things.

I am unsure if you are saying there should be more pros in the sport or there should be fewer of if you are kind of saying both? On one hand I see there being too many pros right now, so I don't see the barrier of entry being quite high enough. I don't know how high to re-set that bar. But, I also think that you can make the argument that there are almost too many races given the lack of pros at some. So, chicken or the egg. Too many races, too few pros? Too many pros? which is it? I agree that when you look at a race lake IMLP, IMUK, IMWhistler, and a host of others (70.3s included) that it's fair to say that the field was small so there aren't enough pros. That is a result of, I really believe, the cascading effect of the KPR and which athletes end up 'needing' to race a late IM vs. those who are essentially safe for Kona.

Bringing doping and re-qualifying as a pro into the equation opens a whole can of worms that would deserve its own post. Your last paragraph casts a pretty wide net. You have something to base this on?[/quote]

I hate that this thread has degenerated into thoughtful discussion. It started out much better.

---

Website
Contact me for Huub and Falco Discounts