However I thought I heard some reference that Kasper saw her number on the penalty list but was not informed of the violation. That sounds like a rule that needs to change. If you are called for a penalty and you must choose to serve or not serve (based on potential future protest) then you certainly deserve to be pre-informed of the specific rule which was violated. This should be an easy change to implement on the white boards. eg "#42 Wetsuit out of box"

——-

The current setup is fine. We are seeing a very very rare and crappy situation.


Besides there is no way to tell the athlete and have a discussion on the case. The official in penalty box has zero clue what infraction athlete did other then being told in his/her ear piece. They have no way of knowing if it truly was #3 instead of #2. They are there to just make sure you serve it and time your penalty. They aren’t the ones to argue over by any means.

So moral of story. A) always have race support identity penalties for athletes. Ive seen 3 instances in last 2 itu events both locally and at World Cup level where lack of support watching penalties caused DQ because athlete missed it. B) always serve your penalty. C) kasper got screwed unfortunately D). You won’t see itu ever take time off. It just won’t happen.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I don’t think ITU should alter the results in this case. What is done is done. But I’ve said before, triathlon is a young sport and it’s rulebook is immature. It must continue to evolve. I propose 1 simple change: to notify the athlete of the nature of the infraction at the time of notification of the existence of the infraction.

How? You know almost all the mount and dismount infractions are noticed after the fact by video replays (while they are either biking and/or out of T2 on run). By the volume of athletes entering T2 together they can’t do that ruling instantaneous.

Same with swim start infractions. They review the video and then give the infractions. In case of swim start they serve it in T1. In case of mount/dismount issue they serve it on run.

I guess technically they could force a mount issue penalty in T2.

But what your proposing would only work in very few instances.

Like I said this was a very rare instance. They don’t neee to re-do entire system because of the issue (and yes it sucks ass it happened).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

they could go to tacking the penalty on after the race. if you appeal and win, then no harm and no foul. if you appeal and lose, then you lose 10 seconds but you will avoid the situation here where you can "serve" an incorrect penalty and drop 2 spots.

Problem with that is tv won’t like it. Right now it’s really simple.

1st to line wins. We don’t have to wait and wonder on penalties. Now in a rare case like this the athlete is screwed. But I’ve been around itu races since 2009 and can’t recall this happening before. So like I said we are talking about something that rarely happens and trying to change a very efficient system.

What’s more often is athletes going to races, missing their penalty and getting dq’d. If that’s your athlete or federation you probaly feel pretty damn bad. Like I said I saw it happen 2 times this past weekend and it’s not a fun feeling I’d think (even worse if your there on sight as a coach).

I think it sucks but I think what is being offered is not better. You won’t have the man power (officials) to tell every athlete instantaneous of an infraction.

And waiting til the end to tack on penalty was what was being offered before and why itu wanted penalties to be served during the race and the finish was the finish. Not figuring out who does or doesn’t have an penalty and then calculating splits etc.

“1st to line” is a very appealing finish for tv and or simplicity.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

How come none of you ITU guys are commenting on my solution. What is the downside??? At least the offended athlete gets some satisfaction after the fact and the TV show can go on as it would otherwise...

What was your proposal? To give time back?

I think I already commented on that. I dont see that happening. Your result is what it is, no time being added it subtracted; even if it means in rare instances an athlete gets “screwed”.

But like I said this is so rare that if they gave the time back I wouldn’t be opposed. As I said the system they have now works really really well. We are talking about an rare occurance.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Post #124

His idea is you give back the time but you don’t move anyone down in place. I like it. Essentially you have 2 x 3rd place athletes in this scenario.

I agree with you that the order of finish over the line is a sacred thing. But so is, well, fairness. This seems to be a way for those two to coexist.

Thanks aj, glad someone gets it. Is it just too simple for people to grasp?? As an ex pro that got screwed more than my share of the time, fairness is big in my list of possible race outcomes.. I guess most people have not been screwed like I have or this particular person, and the empathy is lacking for injustice...

I think fairness is big on everyone and FYI this issue doesn’t happen as often as it seemed to happen to athletes in the past. So I like the idea. I think it’ll be hard to implement only because it messes with “your finish is your finish”. Even if that means “fairness” is compromised 0.1% of the time.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I think it’ll be hard to implement only because it messes with “your finish is your finish”.//

That's just a made up construct and has no real bearing in history or fairness. So my question is, why can it not be adjusted ever so slightly when something grossly erroneous happens to an athlete? IF Ironman could get over the mass start in favor of waves, pro and AG starts, then this is easy in the scheme of things. That is if you care about fairness and take responsibility for your own screw ups, rather than putting them on a non offending athlete...

It can be. And because if it’s so rare occurance that it can be corrected I’m not opposed it.

And if your tone is suggesting that I don’t care about fairness you can go take a hike Monty.

I’m just suggesting to you how I see it happening.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I've seen essentially that situation happen for a marathon, where the course markings were off, and the main chase pack ended up cutting 400m off the course, they did a countback, and anyone who would have ended up in the money got partial prize money (but the legit top 10 finishers got their rightful money as well...). It was an expense for the organizers, but it helped ensure that fewer people left with a sour taste in their mouth. The idea makes sense, it could work, it'll be interesting to see if the rule moves there.

In terms of instantly telling people their infractions... in triathlon, much like in police work, they are basically moving towards body cameras for officials, so everything is filmed... After the swim start, they review the video, after T1, after T2, etc. so it's hard to tell people at the instance it happens. In terms of posting the rule violated, as others correctly pointed out, the official calling the infraction is not radioing the penalty tent... They are radioing the head referee, and may or may not actually spell out the infraction (often they call the head referee over to have the discussion and then ultimately make a call), who then has the final say as to whether to radio the penalty over to the penalty tent... The priority, especially for littering penalties on the run, is to get them posted ASAP, because the penalty has to be on the board before the athlete passes the penalty box to start their last lap... After the fact, when the violation report is posted, it then spells out the particular rule violated, or when the athlete inquires about potentially protesting the call, they would get the specific details... The majority of times that people skip out on penalties it's not because they are gambling on the appeal, it's because they missed it (their coach or parent or member of their entourage never bothered to check the board)... Especially in a sprint, where it's a 10sec penalty, you pretty much have to serve it, because that's typically only a few spots and it's a lot to gamble those guaranteed points and dollars to possibly move up a couple of spots (we'd be more likely to see this for more minor placings towards the tail end of the olympic qualifying window, when people may gamble to try and move up to get the points they need to qualify). In a longer distance event where the penalties are longer, then it's a bit more of a decision to make, but I don't know a single coach who would advise their athlete to skip it and protest for 10sec...

And if your tone is suggesting that I don’t care about fairness you can go take a hike Monty. //

My tone in this is directed at Race directors. You personally cannot do anything about this, except agree or not that fairness should be a priority. I personally have been able to change a couple race directors minds over the years when this happened, so I will continue to put this out there. When a race I race directed at made a mistake, it was my solution to the problem, not blaming the athletes for not knowing the course. It seemed the right and simple thing to do back then, I don't see anything that has changed that would negate this easy and fair solution..

if memory serves, this was actually an explicit criteria (one of several) that the IOC put on triathlon before they got into the games in 2000. first across the line had to be the winner.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I am not one to pass judgement on HS for his Rio TUE but I found it absurd that with all the random commentary not once did Trevor or Barry mention it. It was the biggest Triathlon news for a full week just a month ago. This means that they were either totally in the dark and out of touch with this (which I can't see Barry missing) or they made a conscious effort to leave it out of the conversation. To me I think it was their job to bring it to the attention of the greater Triathlon community as they are the Voices of the WTS. That doesn't mean thy needed to give their personal opinion on it but the topic should have been addressed.

Who else thinks they had a gag order to avoid any heat on WTS decision to wave any penalties because Henri was so cooperative?

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

Me 100%
Doesn't make me happy though, and I will pass judgement, the whole thing is bullshit, IOC and ITU appearing very corrupt with what went on here. Isn't the first time, won't be the last.

Who else thinks they had a gag order to avoid any heat on WTS decision to wave any penalties because Henri was so cooperative? //

My hand is up. You remember when the TDF was going and Phil and Paul would not mention he who could not be mentioned? It is a very small world the ITU, not surprising that there is a circling of the wagons in cases like this. These guys all make their living in this sport, a black eye on one athlete hits everyone just a little more than hearing some football player got busted for a pharmacy full of drugs...

That’s a good way to look at it. I was thinking it could have been used in the context of “Henri had some off season contravercy which must be fueling his fire today” or similar. No need to go too deep into it. Barry knows what these guys have for breakfast so it was odd to not hear any mention of it. LOL

I’m really happy for Henri, glad to see him come out and show he didn’t fluke out in 2016. I think he’s entitled to a clean slate and he’s earned it. He out classed the field from start to finish this weekend and hats off to him.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

It was mentioned in the BBC commentary as soon as HS broke on the bike (both were very political about it)

Only just caught up on this race was going to bring up the BBC commentary team as they were well off the ball with a lot of the race (even before reading the thread and realising someone had a penalty, no mention of that by the BBC) will be getting a Triathlon Live pass to watch the rest of the season.

Great race for Learmonth, I wonder how she fits in with the other four Brit girls (Holland/Stimpson/Jenx/Stanford) when all fully fit? Im guessing she will no longer be seen as a domestique for any of them.

Its a pitty Ali had to pull out this race as I think he'd have won it, I don't see HS breaking on the bike away from Ali or out running him if the pair had broke together.

I assume you are a Brit and congrats to team GB! That being said, lets be honest here, if Mola couldn't run him down Ali didn't stand a chance. It really all came down to the corners. I think being by himself gave HS less things to consider in all of those corners. If Ali had been out there with him I think the chase pack would have reeled them back in but we will never know. Commonwealth Games should be a doozie!!

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

I think you're missing the point, does Ali allow HS to break and stay away? I know Ali hasn't done much short course at all recently but I'd still back him over HS if they came out of T2 together!

Matt Chilton is a terrible commentator, I don't now why the BBC continue to employ him for triathlon. Occasionally they have Rob Walker who is so much better (he's also really good on the XC skiing/biathlon at the winter olympics). Actually the best commentator the BBC have used recently is Ali Brownlee! When he worked on the Nottingham Relays last year he hardly let Matt Chilton get a word in edgeways.

I forget where I saw him commentate, but it was absolutely mind blowing how poised and insightful he was. It was a triathlon, and he definitely carried his weight and then some.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”