Why are you all continuing to debate this w/ H2OFUN. He is not going to concede even if he's dead wrong.
There is a long history of that archived here on ST. Its easy to criticize while playing Monday morning quarterback.
The RD put on an amazing event and dealt with the situation with amazing professionalism.

There is no such thing as a perfect event for everyone. CTA did a great job.

The RD put on an amazing event and dealt with the situation with amazing professionalism.

There is no such thing as a perfect event for everyone. CTA did a great job.

Three Garmins had it 300 meters long and the current added to the swim disaster.

Bob

It was inevitable that some would try and morph this into a "learn to swim" string. That's not the issue. If you're comfortable swimming without a wetsuit, good for you.

The issue is the lack of notice (and the lack of a contingency plan). People came to this event from cold water climates, like Rochester, where the water is too cold this early in the season to train in open water without a wetsuit (and unsafe to do so). They did so knowing that Eagleman has always been a wetsuit race, and believing that the USAT rule posted on the race site indicated that water temps between 78-82 would make it wetsuit optional w/o the chance for awards. People DID NOT KNOW that temps 78 or higher would turn it into a mandatory non-wetsuit swim for everyone. If they knew that, this thread wouldn't exist. How you interpret the Ironman rule, and then suggest someone else's alternative inerpretation is unreasonalbe, really highlights the issue. If people knew the water temps were hovering around 78, and that at 78 the swim would convert to mandatory non wetsuit for everyone, people would have saved money and planned accordingly.

At the pre-race meeting, the RD asked "how many of you are doing your first 70.3 race"? More than half raised their hands. It's no secret that this wasn't a field of 2200 elite athletes competing for a Kona spot. They marketed this event as an ideal first timer's race, and they confirmed that at the pre-race meeting, when they also confirmed it was a wetsuit swim.

Here are the questions no one seems able to answer: Why did the race director tell everyone on Saturday it would be a wetsuit swim and that the water was 76.something (to resounding applause amongst the racers in attendance)? How did the river heat up over 2 degrees overnight? Please, tell me how the river heated up over 2 degrees overnight.

Don't lead people to believe it's a wetsuit swim all along, including the day before the race, and then tell people while in transition a couple of hours before the swim starts that the water temp went up 2 degrees overnight, that the race is now non wetsuit for everyone, and that the 78-82 optional wetsuit/no award rule doesn't apply.

The reason people are upset about this is because they DIDN'T KNOW it could happen, and were being led to believe all along that it was a wetsuit swim. It's irrelevant whether you personally liked the RD's call or not, and it's irrelevant whether you think people should learn to swim better.

People had a right to know and plan accordingly.

Ask the masses of DQ'ed people whether they agree.

A swim which is 300 meters longer than anticipated constitutes a disaster? What is it like to live in a world of such profound hyperbole?

Not sure if it's been posted, but these are the CURRENT Ironman wetsuit rules as posted on Ironman.com:

Until Sept. 1, 2010 there are no restrictions on the type of wetsuit worn, provided the water temperature is less than 78 degrees Fahrenheit. Athletes may choose to wear a wetsuit in water temperatures between 78 degrees Fahrenheit and 84 degrees Fahrenheit, with the understanding that they will not be eligible for awards, including World Championship slots. Wetsuits are prohibited in water temperature greater than 84 degrees Fahrenheit.

Mathematically, "if" is not the same as "if and only if." "If the water is 78 or colder then wetsuits are allowed" doesn't state what happens when the water is above 78. It is still a true statement if the water is 79 degrees and wetsuits are allowed: a conditional statement is automatically true if its antecedent is false. "Wetsuits are allowed if and only if the water is 78 or colder" is quite clear.

When folks complain about the bike and run being a little off, what do you call a swim that is off around 15%? So, it would be okay if the bike was 64.4 miles and the run was 15 miles? Might has well make all the legs equally long.

Exactly why I referenced an alternate universe. It obviously isn't explicitly iff, but anyone living in this universe should understand that iff is implied.

I'm all for "say what you mean, mean what you say," but after 52 years I've come to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it to do that level of parsing. At some point, one profits by asking what was the intention of the statement.

You mean like how one profits by having racers spend lots of money at the event expo the day before the race/morning-of surprise announcement about the rule change?

I'm curious as to why no one has commented on the yellow buoys moving. I guess I am probably wrong to assume that most know they do not have to go around the yellow buoys but rather ony go around the turn buoys??? If you followed I could certainly see the extra yardage coming into play.

Congrats to Vigo on his decision and as "Not so" Slowterp said - preventing further peril
RD makes all decisions and is also therefore held personally accountable for anything that happens on course. Put that weight on your shoulders one morning with 2700 athletes about to race.

Lastly - head official did tell me in the morning she measured in 7 different places and she could not find legal temperature.

Did we have a new head official that plays by the rules? Ok we all know she does!!! Did they previously?

Is it a circumstance of know that it has been brought to the RD's attention he must adhere to rules or face some negligence issue if something happens?

We will never know what was going thru his mind that morning .... but I'm sure he made what he felt was the safest and smartest decision.



.... tin can ironman ....

(I have no clue what this means, unless you are suggesting that people bought wetsuits the day before a half ironman? Talk about lack of preparation)

Why is it that people assume that, because it's never happened before, a race is always wetsuit legal? I just don't understand this mindset. Be prepared: the Choptank isn't the St. Lawrence River. Every triathlon has the possibility of odd weather, including water that is way beyond normal temperatures. Deal with it and stop whining. Nothing in any set of rules anyone comes up with says that a race is guaranteed to be wetsuit legal or illegal. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Seems unlikely that it was particularly long. Tri Columbia tend to know what they're doing.
Far more likely to have been due to current and possibly chop. When it's long people tend to go a similar percentage slower than normal, regardless of speed, but when there is current the slower swimmers spend a disproportionate amount of extra time swimming into the current, so they swim further than the fast folk, and thus their times are disproportionately slower, which seems to be born out in the results today.

The issue is the lack of notice (and the lack of a contingency plan). People came to this event from cold water climates, like Rochester, where the water is too cold this early in the season to train in open water without a wetsuit (and unsafe to do so). They did so knowing that Eagleman has always been a wetsuit race, and believing that the USAT rule posted on the race site indicated that water temps between 78-82 would make it wetsuit optional w/o the chance for awards. People DID NOT KNOW that temps 78 or higher would turn it into a mandatory non-wetsuit swim for everyone. If they knew that, this thread wouldn't exist. How you interpret the Ironman rule, and then suggest someone else's alternative inerpretation is unreasonalbe, really highlights the issue. If people knew the water temps were hovering around 78, and that at 78 the swim would convert to mandatory non wetsuit for everyone, people would have saved money and planned accordingly.

At the pre-race meeting, the RD asked "how many of you are doing your first 70.3 race"? More than half raised their hands. It's no secret that this wasn't a field of 2200 elite athletes competing for a Kona spot. They marketed this event as an ideal first timer's race, and they confirmed that at the pre-race meeting, when they also confirmed it was a wetsuit swim.

Here are the questions no one seems able to answer: Why did the race director tell everyone on Saturday it would be a wetsuit swim and that the water was 76.something (to resounding applause amongst the racers in attendance)? How did the river heat up over 2 degrees overnight? Please, tell me how the river heated up over 2 degrees overnight.

Don't lead people to believe it's a wetsuit swim all along, including the day before the race, and then tell people while in transition a couple of hours before the swim starts that the water temp went up 2 degrees overnight, that the race is now non wetsuit for everyone, and that the 78-82 optional wetsuit/no award rule doesn't apply.

The reason people are upset about this is because they DIDN'T KNOW it could happen, and were being led to believe all along that it was a wetsuit swim. It's irrelevant whether you personally liked the RD's call or not, and it's irrelevant whether you think people should learn to swim better.

People had a right to know and plan accordingly.

Now, I understand that if Vigo stated on Saturday that it would be wetsuit legal, then changed that on race morning, people may have a legitimate gripe about being misled, etc. I would tend to agree with that, since the water temps likely don't increase overnight and perhaps he shouldn't make such absolute statements if there was ANY chance they would not hold true. Also, the announcements yesterday morning clearly stated that they weren't allowing the "optional wetsuits swim" because they would have no way of telling who wore one and who didn't for purposes of awards, slots, etc. Again, probably not a legit excuse and definitely something that could be dealt with via some advance planning.

On a positive note, I think the race was well run and CTA puts on a great event. The conditions were pretty tough in all three disciplines so whether you had the race of your life or just finished, it was a good effort and congrats to you. Personally, I will be signing up for another Eagleman.

Someone's purported ignorance of the rule...