Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [APKTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Except USAT only Disqualified Queens instead of the others. It's also dumb because they shouldn't have let them race or just given a time penalty because the officials looked the other way or were ignorant. If the officials are ignorant, it's pretty easy to see that the athletes would also be.

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheStroBro wrote:
Except USAT only Disqualified Queens instead of the others. It's also dumb because they shouldn't have let them race or just given a time penalty because the officials looked the other way or were ignorant. If the officials are ignorant, it's pretty easy to see that the athletes would also be.

I 100% agree that Queens (and again, any other teams with improper equipment) should not have even been allowed to check into transition with equipment that is not approved. Would they have let someone in with a disc wheel, a tri spoke or a knockoff helmet from Ali Express? A bit different but in the end the same general idea - equipment that is not approved.

As to USAT DQ'ing EVERYONE with sleeves, I think Jack pointed out pretty clearly that a protest can only be filed against one individual athlete and therefore USAT can only look into that athlete. Bottom line is that the officials did NOT do their job and USAT didn't step in to make it right. Putting aside people's feelings on the Queens athletes, this is really an issue with USAT and them being INCREDIBLY inconsistent with enforcing their rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [APKTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
APKTRI wrote:
...this is really an issue with USAT and them being INCREDIBLY inconsistent with enforcing their rules.
Could say.. some of their mindnumbingly stupid rules, such as .. no sleeves allowed.

The more rules a sport has, the harder it is to have clean, consistent application of those rules. Golf - they're trying - but for such a stupidly simple game in concept, way too many rules. NFL - more rules, more ambiguity, worse officiating.. it's not a coincidence.

I'm all for rules to competition, but they need to be black and white, or as damn near close as possible. And they need to be simple - to understand, to follow, to interpret. And they shouldn't cover areas that really have no bearing on the actual competitive event. Like.. sleeves. Seriously? What if Podunk U. started a fledgling tri club and their participants can only afford some $3 Hanes T's that say P.U. on them? Gonna make them cut the sleeves off? Sorry Podunk, but you'll have to use these scissors or change into wife-beaters. We wouldn't want you violating potential rule 1.2.3.4, subsection (a) ii that says in a DL MTR where it is apparently supposed to follow the rules of individual DL racing, thou shalt not wear sleeves, unless the temperature is low enough you're cold in which case you can wear one of the approved cover-ups on a list that we can't find. Plus the aero benefits of that 100% cotton sleeve puts you at an unfair advantage.

Some of this stuff is so mickey mouse.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [APKTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You really need someone to write a definition for you that explains that "Individual draft legal events are different than mixed "team" relay?" Let me thing. One is for an individual, and one has "team" in its name....

I didn't say the meetings don't matter. They certainly do. But two points.
1. When they contradict the rules governing the race, that makes them invalid.
2. The MTR meeting did not mention uniforms or the separate DL rule-set. Different meeting, time and day.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [APKTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have also heard rumors that the protest and appeals procedure were improperly followed.... I guess that does make sense if Queens didn't hear about this until the awards ceremony.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [AJohnson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AJohnson wrote:
I have also heard rumors that the protest and appeals procedure were improperly followed.... I guess that does make sense if Queens didn't hear about this until the awards ceremony.

It sounds like the protest was filed in the appropriate time frame. USAT could have taken a while to decide whether or not to DQ or just let it be. Is there somewhere in the rules saying that the athlete will be notified in XX amount of time following the protest? How are they supposed to notify them? What if the 432nd place athlete was DQ'd. How would they find out? The way I look at it as long as the DQ is added to the results they don't have to personally call the athlete/coach and tell them. To me it sounds like USAT was trying to give Queens the heads up before they found out in the middle of awards.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [APKTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have had a friend taken part in a protest similar to this before....
1. When a protest is made against you as an athlete, you are supposed to be notified almost immediately.
2. And before a decision is made they are supposed to notify both the person that filed the protest and the person that they protested against. Then they are both supposed to be able to have their voices heard. Now I don't know this for sure, but it seems that the decision was made before queen's was even told there was a protest. If that is true that is like a Kangaroo court with no defendant present.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [AJohnson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
2. The MTR meeting did not mention uniforms or the separate DL rule-set. Different meeting, time and day.

-----

I've heard from coaches and athletes that say otherwise. They mentioned to all athletes/coaches detailed rules are at "draftlegalrules.com"


Allowable uniforms and equipment are all on that document for all draft legal races. Those rules as always are the governing rules for draft legal events especially when the collegiate rulebook states the MTR will follow the "DL rules".



As I said I'm guessing with almost certainity that no other team in top 10 had sleeves on and that the ones "confused" on the rules was the Queens issue and the "participant" athletes who likely aren't as familiar with DL rules/regs/specifics.

Again there was what up to 255 athletes or something doing this DL event.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And you'd be incorrect about your top 10 thing...like I said, there were A LOT of people with sleeved suits.

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What teams did then, please tell me which teams did. I'd be curious.


ETA: You said you have photos right? Go ahead and post them here.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Apr 10, 19 12:23
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The MTR is where A LOT of people race an "draft legal" event that otherwise would never race the individual event. Mainly due to ability/intensity of DL racing. DL racing has lap out rules that affect mostly with swimmers as if your slow in the water, you won't make the finish of the bike. So as I said I'm guessing a ton of those sleeved athletes were what we would call "participant" athletes. Ones that are doing it for the fun/kickass part of it, and aren't trying to game the system. They just dont know all the specifics of it.

But again, I'm curious out of all the top 10 teams who have athletes that regularly race DL and know the sleeve rule- which team wore them beside Queens?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The letter of the law USAT followed in DQing Queens is that:

1. DL races follow ITU rules
2. MTR is considered a DL race
3. so MTR follows ITU rules - no sleeve allowed

It seems that 1 should be clear to everyone for individual events. But 2 is implicit and probably obvious to those who regularly participate in individual DL races - not a lot of the athletes at this event. Adding to the confusion is the documented wording from USAT about 1 only applies to "individual events", and then the contradictory message in the pre-race meeting.

Given all that, it seems harsh for USAT to DQ queens using the letter of the law. I wonder if they considered all these factors in before making the decision.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But Jack Felix raced Super League. And they wore sleeves in draft legal racing. So why can't he wear them here???
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [dalava] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What contradicting message was in the pre-race meeting?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I read from this thread that in the pre-race meeting they said the MTR races follow ITU rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [dalava] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The collegiate rulebook states what rules the MTR is raced under. But as I said to those "participants" who dont know DL specifics, they likely have no clue other than just make sure it's a "road bike". So in essence this was really a critical thinking exercise that many seemed to fail (again I understand why- many aren't used to the specifics of it but as I said StroBro needs to show me what top 10 teams had sleeves- almost all of the top 10 teams have athletes that race and understand DL rules). All you had to do was read the rulebook to understand what rules each race would be raced under. It's all there in the collegiate competitive rulebook. So ignorance or "well my conference told me this" isn't good enough IF you are racing for championships- which is why only 1 team/person was protested against and no one cared about 38th place team who was wearing "sleeves".

ETA: And I should say in 2017 when Dan Feeney (Colorado) WON the olympic and was giving an penalty for *racking* bike incorrectly, he showed 20 other people all around him doing it wrong, and not many beyond him got a penalty. So moral of the story- know the rules. If not, ignorance doesn't get you sympathy with officials. ESPECIALLY in DL circumstances, where the level of "preparedness" is much higher.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Apr 10, 19 19:24
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [dalava] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dalava wrote:
Other than the clubs and the members themselves, who really cares about the Collegiate Club Nats?

That's what I thought, until I went and watched it. The draft legal races were amazing to watch.. those teams (both guys and girls) were ripping it up on the bike, and then they'd fly out of T2 in large groups and run each other into the ground on the run. It was great to watch.. much more interesting than the club races I've watched and participated in. Great atmosphere too.. they're all way into it.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [ripple] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ripple wrote:
Some of this stuff is so mickey mouse.
+1. Sleeves gave no advantage. Next up, body hair. Sigh.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheStroBro wrote:
So, because Tempe Beach Park is a couple of miles away from where I live I went to support the athletes. One of my teammates also coaches MSU, so I went to meet her.

Kim is awesome! Great energy, hard worker, really strong athlete. She would only add to the festive atmosphere...

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why isn’t the elephant of this thread being addressed? Nonsense rules. Any idea why there is even a rule (in the first place) specifying why you can’t wear sleeves? Is it a homogeneous beautification rule? If it was cold, could you wear armwarmers? If it’s really hot, and an athlete is concerned about sun exposure, I would think an outfit that offers more sun protection should be allowable, or sunsleeves, or is that not legal either? Since it’s draft legal, a shortsleeve suit that is theoretically faster with sleeves is meaningless over a sleeveless. This is a club sport, filled with mainly poor athletes, with rules like the Olympics... a total head scratcher to me. Am I missing something? If they want to follow a formal rule structure, why not say x or y rules will not be enforced... and then to only penalize one person out of supposed many sleeve wearing athletes is just plain nonsense.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well I have seen and shared the slides from the MTR meeting here on this forum. So it is a fact that they were not mentioned in the MTR meeting. People can say whatever they want.
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [wetswimmer99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nonsense rules.

------

Actually it's not nonsense rules. The clarity within usat club commissioners and their rules is where the "mixup" happened.

Yes I have an idea why they don't allow sleeves- likely they don't so that it doesnt turn into a "tech" war and it's less about your uniform choice and more about the athlete inside the uniform....go figure, they want to take out as much non competitive things as they can for that type of distance race.


If it's cold yes you can wear armwarmers.


In terms of "sun exposure"- no that's not really an concern with the rules.



Yes this is club sports. Many of these athletes can only afford 1 uniform. There seems to have been a mixup between the conference commissioners understanding of the rules and the actual rules of the event going into this event and the info they were distributing to the athletes. The head scratcher isn't really that they are putting in strict rules. The issue was with the clarity and understanding of the rules. I'm a DL focused coach so I understood the rules fairly easily. But likely majority of teams dont have coaches than do have coaches and thus can at times either not understand the at times "overwhelming" nature of DL regulations/rules or simply take in the wrong info.


So it's not the specificity of the rules that is the issue. It was in the application of the rules that some confusion came into play. I don't think anyone was trying to "game" the system here- I think most with sleeves thought it was legal and no issues. BUT the ones with sleeves were breaking rules, and so the application of the rules and the protest and appeal process was done in accordance to the rules. So AJohnson's comments that the officials error'd in this ruling against Queens is simply incorrect. Queens will take their medicine, learn from this, be a little more pissed off for next year and make sure all their i's are dotted and t's crossed so no issue like this occurs moving forward. They'll go beast mode next year looking to sweep all the races (women's, men's, MTR, combined) . The same will happen likely with USAT/collegiate conferences. They'll resolve the uniform issue one way or the other- either allow "any" uniform essentially. Or make it better known/understood what the uniform requirements are for each event.








Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Apr 10, 19 19:54
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [wetswimmer99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the biggest things is that everyone seems to be blaming each other for all this when we really should be blaming USAT for these rules that point in a million directions and are ambiguous as hell. I mean why are they adding rules to draftlegalrules.com just 24 days before the event and not having the commissioners share that with the teams? Why are they not properly following the protest/appeal procedures? Why did they not check the uniforms before the event like all other ITU events if they are going to impose those same rules? Why did they wait nearly 3 hours until the event was over to tell Queens during the awards ceremony? If they did want the ITU rules to be followed why did they put it in the DL slides, but not the MTR slides? It seems like USAT is the ones with some dirt of their faces here for running such a mess. There is always going to be a petty/jealous team out there (which of the 4 CU athletes made this protest, and did the coach actually confirm it? That is embarrassing for all the 4 athletes and coaches involved) , and always going to be a cocky winning team, but the people putting on the race should keep it held together. Can we not all agree USAT needs to fix this issue in one way or another? No matter what the outcome, we can't have the team title being changed at the awards ceremony every other year. (Yes, this is 2 out of 3 years now)
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheStroBro wrote:
And you'd be incorrect about your top 10 thing...like I said, there were A LOT of people with sleeved suits.


StroBro- I was actually correct in my assessment that no top 10 teams would wear sleeves. As I said the whole sleeves issue is more with inexperienced DL athletes. I just checked and every top 10 team had regular uniform except Queens. I sorta figured all those athletes would know and understand the rules and also have coaches that will confirm any issues. As I said it's the inexperienced teams that likely came with only 1 uniform and likely never checked or got inaccurate info at the time of ordering kits. These are poor college kids who likely get 1 kit a year, hell probaly 1 kit for a career. The MTR rules are the last thing on their mind when ordering kits for those "participant" athletes who also are likely on teams with little to no coaching oversight.


And with that- I'm bowing out of this conversation! Let's hope they look to making some changes that clarify the rules much better going into 2020 when it's back in Tempe again!

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Apr 10, 19 20:16
Quote Reply
Re: Controversy at Collegiate Nationals [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
B_Doughtie wrote:
Nonsense rules.

------

Actually it's not nonsense rules. The clarity within usat club commissioners and their rules is where the "mixup" happened.

Yes I have an idea why they don't allow sleeves- likely they don't so that it doesnt turn into a "tech" war and it's less about your uniform choice and more about the athlete inside the uniform....go figure, they want to take out as much non competitive things as they can for that type of distance race.


If it's cold yes you can wear armwarmers.


In terms of "sun exposure"- no that's not really an concern with the rules.



Yes this is club sports. Many of these athletes can only afford 1 uniform. There seems to have been a mixup between the conference commissioners understanding of the rules and the actual rules of the event going into this event and the info they were distributing to the athletes. The head scratcher isn't really that they are putting in strict rules. The issue was with the clarity and understanding of the rules. I'm a DL focused coach so I understood the rules fairly easily. But likely majority of teams dont have coaches than do have coaches and thus can at times either not understand the at times "overwhelming" nature of DL regulations/rules or simply take in the wrong info.


So it's not the specificity of the rules that is the issue. It was in the application of the rules that some confusion came into play. I don't think anyone was trying to "game" the system here- I think most with sleeves thought it was legal and no issues. BUT the ones with sleeves were breaking rules, and so the application of the rules and the protest and appeal process was done in accordance to the rules. So AJohnson's comments that the officials error'd in this ruling against Queens is simply incorrect. Queens will take their medicine, learn from this, be a little more pissed off for next year and make sure all their i's are dotted and t's crossed so no issue like this occurs moving forward. They'll go beast mode next year looking to sweep all the races (women's, men's, MTR, combined) . The same will happen likely with USAT/collegiate conferences. They'll resolve the uniform issue one way or the other- either allow "any" uniform essentially. Or make it better known/understood what the uniform requirements are for each event.








I should clarify, I’m not against rules per se, and not a proponent of an arms race (like that one?) but a collegiate level, club sport, should have the most liberal use of clothing rules, that are still part of triathlon rules in general, whether its DL, shortcourse, Longcourse, etc. Sleeves are allowable on longcourse, sleeveless on DL, combine the two clothing rules and allow both. If someone wants to rock less coverage, using a speedo or jammers, and that’s all they can afford, let them do that... if they want to show their naval, so what? I guess being in the sport for many years and seeing shortcourse to IM athletes win in all sorts of outfits over the decades, including Mark Allen dominating in speedo briefs and Paula Newby Fraser in two piece suits or Fernanda Keller with a Brazilian cut suit, frankly the different styles made the sport more laid back, and enjoyable.

I think making the sport more inclusive, more inviting to newcomers, and affordable at the collegiate level should be a primary objective of the rules, along with safety. When I was in college many moons ago, many triathletes also dabbled in cycling races, so our club uniform was basically a cycling skinsuit, with sleeves, and we raced bikes in it and did tris in them.
Last edited by: wetswimmer99: Apr 10, 19 20:23
Quote Reply

Prev Next