I don't mean to be rude, I am not a good swimmer myself and am very thankful when a race allows for a wetsuit swim. However by definition a wetsuit is "A tight-fitting permeable suit worn in cold water, as by skin divers, to retain body heat"

It is not a swim aid. I understand your argument that the USAT rules state that a wetsuit maybe be worn between temps of 78 - 84 and you are upset that the RD didn't seem to have a plan in place for those temps and that option. I think the RD was correct not to allow wetsuits at all. Anyone who wore a wetsuit for that swim would have exited the swim dehydrated and with core temps much too high to continue in a race where effective temps topped 100 degrees.

If you were DQ'd because your swim was too slow then I would suggest spending some time working on your swim instead of posting complaints on slowtwitch.

It is triathlon and that implies an ability to meet cutoffs in three events without any assistance. If you were a weak cyclist and it was a windy day would you suggest allowances should be made or the cutoff extended for that circumstance?

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

And of course NOAA follows USAT guidelines for measuring the water temperature. You know, more than 6" and less than 24" below the surface, at the appropriate distance from the shore, and on the course.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I am sure the guy is a good dude.

But technically, the link on his website is from 2009. The rules have been changed since then. This was a USAT sanctioned race and should have been operated under 2010 USAT rules. From the current USAT website:
http://www.usatriathlon.org/...l-sanction-questions

"What are the temperature guidelines for wearing a wetsuit during a sanctioned race?
Wet suits may legally be worn when water temperature is at or below 78 degrees Fahrenheit. Participants are allowed to wear wet suits when the water temperature is 78-84 degrees but are not eligible for prizes, awards, or age group placement. Wet suites are not permitted for temperatures above 84 degrees Fahrenheit."

I personally don't care. But if everyone takes a step back and looks at the facts. The RD should have updated his website and should have been prepared for this situation.

Having an out of date website doesn't make the RD right.

From Section 4.4 -

age group participants may wear a wetsuit at their own discretion, provided however that participants who wear a wet suit within this temperature range

shall not be eligible for prizes or awards.

My interpretation of this sentence is that if the RD does not have in place a provision that excludes wetsuit participants from awards, i.e., no system for tracking those who wear wetsuits; then it is no longer the athlete's choice whether or not to wear a wetsuit.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

So you say the RD is correct in not following the rules he posted? Post a no-wetsuits-over-78 rule and people like me won't register. Post a wetsuits-OK-but-no-awards-between-78-and-84 rule and we will be upset at the waste of $255+ when the rule is changed at the last minute. The issue here is not whether wetsuits should be allowed or not or whether weak swimmers should be allowed or not, it is about sticking to what you told people to expect.

If the wetsuit option had been allowed, I'm sure that most people would have elected to not wear one. I would have worn one, and I wouldn't have overheated. As I mentioned before, I've done longer swims in warmer water and felt fine. But that may just because my scrawny arms don't generate a lot of heat and my weak kick means my legs don't get a chance to.

Let me turn this around on the weak cyclists. Suppose there's a nice flat route that crosses one major ridge four times on an semi-circular out-and-back course. There are three roads across the ridge: roads A and B cross at very low passes (say 250' elevation gain); road C crosses right over the ridgeline with a 2500' elevation gain each way. Road A is the planned route for the course, but there's road construction on it. The RD thinks that the construction will be over and up to race day tells everyone that, even though there's good evidence that it might not be. One hour before the race the RD announces a course change -- onto road C, even though with minimal planning road B could have been used instead. Dozens of people are DQed or DNFed because they were not prepared for the climbs. Many others are unhappy because they brought their tri bikes when they'd have brought their road bikes if they knew there might be a lot of climbing. Do you think they would have the right to be upset or would you just say "learn to climb"?

My bike example isn't even as bad as the wetsuit situation because no new rules are being made up on the spot, but the rest of it is similar: the RD should have known there might be a change, he should have let everyone know there might have been a change, and he should have been prepared to keep the impact on participants minimal in the event of a change.

Here's the simple, on-the-spot solution for Eagleman: have everyone w/o wetsuits enter the water 6 min before their swim wave goes off. Pause, note the time, run a dummy chip across the timing mat, or something. Then 3 min before the wave start have everyone in a wetsuit go over the mat. Post-processing the data in Excel would take 10 minutes, tops.

I would not take the NOAA's data as evidence that it should have been a wetsuit swim. But it should be clear from that data that water temps between 78 and 84 were rather likely. It is interesting that the temperature at the buoy was actually lower Sunday at race time than it was at the same time on Saturday. It is also interesting that the temperature shot up well over 2 degrees F by the same time on Monday.

I think that if the bike course was in an area where a climb of that significance were possible, it would likely be a hilly course in total and participants would already come to the race with a bike setup that works for them on hilly courses. There is no flat course (like Eagleman) were it would be possible to add a 2,500' of elevation gain at the last minute, at least none on the east coast. So I'm not sure your example is a valid one. Different courses might require different gearing but the ability to ride a bike is assumed and the ability to cover the distance is up to the participant. If they cannot do it, they don't finish. But certainly they don't blame the course or the race director.

Frankly to me, that seems contradictory to the spirit of doing the sport in the first place.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

Ahmen!

This is from the Ironman's web page. If Eagleman wants to deviate from it, they should have told us during the registration period and and not 2 hours before the race. You can call all of the DQ swimmers wussies all you want but the fact of the matter is that the rule that were established by the governaing body (WTC) was ignored by the RD. I was there this past Sunday and I did the swim with plenty of time to spare but it still doesn't change the fact that the rules were not followed by the RD.

http://ironman.com/faq/rulesfaq
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.

---

__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."

I think you misinterpreted my post. I do not read that rule to mean the RD is required to have provisions in place but rather that it is optional for the RD and if he does not have those provisions in place the athlete no longer has a choice and wetsuits are not allowed

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

Come on, it's a hypothetical, it doesn't have to match any real place! I'm not going to waste the effort to do so, but I'm sure I could find some place in CA were something like this is possible (maybe after building some new roads) -- have you been to Death Valley? And for the east coast, let's try the Cumberland Valley and South Mountain: roads A and B use the gap created by the Potomac River and road C climbs right over the top.

So lets see. This rule about using wetsuit between 78-84 with no awards has been around for many many years. I have never heard of a case where because of this rule, there was a safety issue in any race. So, you and a few others are now saying you are smarter than USAT or WTC and know they have and have had a rule for years that is unsafe? Wow, I wish I was that smart. Some folks just do not seem to understand the simple issue. The race did NOT follow the rules they signed a contract to use. They seem to have not been prepared based on what folks said the announcers reason was. And this is the reason I keep pushing so hard to get ITU/USAT/WTC to use the same rules unless there is a REAL reason all 3 agree to for differences. But so far our sport seems to be going the opposite direction, and races are getting more messed up.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Amazing.

Here is the latest WTC rule.


What are the current wetsuit requirements? 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.

It clearly states racers can wear a wetsuit between 78-84. It does not say the RD has a choice to ignore this and disallow wetsuits. Help me understand where I am missing the optional parts for the RD in this current posted WTC rule.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

If I were doing a race anywhere near the mountains I would show up with enough gearing to enable my grandma to climb Mt. Washington. That's just how I roll. Always better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. That was the same attitude we had at Eagleman - it's the Chesapeake Bay and it has been hot. It just might not be a wetsuit swim.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

From Section 4.4 -

age group participants may wear a wetsuit at their own discretion, provided however that participants who wear a wet suit within this temperature range shall not be eligible for prizes or awards

This is from the 2010 USAT rules and I interpret "provided" and "shall' to imply that if there is no provision for the participant to be excluded from awards then the participant no longer has a choice to wear a wetsuit. There is nothing in either rule that states the RD is required to make provisions for a swim that includes the choice.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

I think what is missing is the fact that Vigo "did" think it was a safety issue. Nick (announcer) can say anything he wants but just because he did not say Vigo thought it was a safety issue does not mean that there was not a true concern from him.
Anyone of you could have walked up to him as others did and asked him why no wetsuits. His reply was basically do you remember what happened 2 years ago on this course. If you were there you will remember the carnage. Vigo in a nut shell, said that so many people don't realize how dehydrated they get in their wetsuits and I am not going to go through that again.

As for the rules .... I state as I did yesterday. All decisions are the RD's no matter what the rules say - he is "personally" responsible. USAT makes that very clear to us when we certify our races.

Please help me out. How does any RD have more knowledge about safety with the rules? Are you telling me a rule that has been used for many many years and, as far as I know, has never had an issue is all of a sudden an issue for Vigo? What is his data to prove there was a safety issue? Has he now contracted USAT and WTC to get eliminated their rule since he can now prove a rule they used for years would have caused a safety issue for his race. And if he has data from 2 years ago that proved a rule all races are using is unsafe, why has he not spent the last 2 years working to get this unsafe rule modified?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I suppose that might be the correct interpretation on Krypton, but here on Earth that kind of embellishment just doesn't fly. It doesn't say that. Find me a single RD, race official, USAT official, WTC official, or anyone else with any authority at or over an event, who states that the rule means what you say it means. Good luck with your search.

The argument is now officially distorted within the concentric circles of "you're at a HIM, so you should be able to do the swim without the wetsuit" versus "there were rules that were broken". I'm not paying any credence to the concerns of some racers that other racers would overheat with water temps over 78. That wasn't the reason for the no-wetsuit call. AND, if water temps between 78 - 84 create an unreasonable safety risk of overheating, then why would the USAT have the wetsuit-optional-no-awards-rule that it has for temps b/w 78 - 84?

They didn't have a plan to track the wetsuit racers. They therefore decided to declare no wetsuits for everyone. They broke the rule. Regardless of how significant or insignificant you deem that to be, and regardless of wether you think people were better off w/o the wetsuit, the fact is they said it was a wetsuit swim on Saturday afternoon, they broke the rule approx. 12 hours later while racers were getting set up in T1, and they never gave anyone any advance notice to plan accordingly.

Watch...they'll have a plan next year...because they know they screwed it up this year. Then you can argue that the reason to implement next year's plan has nothing to do with rule compliance, but was done to give people the chance to wear wetsuits in hot waters in order to avoid exposure to the chemical element Kr and its noble gas profusions in the Choptank.

From Section 4.4 -

age group participants may wear a wetsuit at their own discretion, provided however that participants who wear a wet suit within this temperature range shall not be eligible for prizes or awards

I am not embellishing. The rule clearly states that in order for the athlete to have the choice to wear the wetsuit, provisions must be in place to exclude them from awards. No provision, no choice. It does not state at all that the RD is required to provide that option

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

Please help me out. How does any RD have more knowledge about safety with the rules?
I think in this particular case it would be from the exact same weather conditions 2 years ago. I would also like to think that he has been doing this for a very very very long time and is on the board of directors for our region. He is a very intelligent person that made a game time decision and made the right one.
Are you telling me a rule that has been used for many many years and, as far as I know, has never had an issue is all of a sudden an issue for Vigo? What is his data to prove there was a safety issue?
Hence the rule is changing and again I go back to 2 years ago.
Has he now contracted USAT and WTC to get eliminated their rule since he can now prove a rule they used for years would have caused a safety issue for his race. And if he has data from 2 years ago that proved a rule all races are using is unsafe, why has he not spent the last 2 years working to get this unsafe rule modified?
I would imagine he is very involved in the rule changes since he is on the board

The only thing I'm trying to say is he is the man that has to make that very difficult decision and knows it is going to make people very upset but has to do what he feels is the safest option for everyone involved.
If you were there 2 years ago, which I'm guessing you were not, you would possibly back off of your attacks on Safety over interpretation of a rule.

Ever had a man die at your feet and have to ask yourself what could we have done differently? I'll guess the answer to that one is NO also.

x2

I was there. It was not just a matter of swimming in warm water temps. The entire race day was unbelievably hot. To start racing in those conditions already dehydrated and overheated would be a serious, potentially life threatening mistake.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

As was stated by myself and others, this is missing the point. You are now telling me 2 years ago this race had a person die because he allowed wetsuits when the water was between 78-84? I thought someone post the water temp had never been over 78? And if this is true, and I guess you are implying he could prove it, nothing has changed during the last 2 years to eliminate a rule that was proven to have killed someone?

I am not attacking anyone. I have been an RD. I have had folks hurt!!! Yes, I DID change rules and processes after these things happened, and communicated them to racers. At our race over 30 years we have been lucky no one has died. BUT, one of the reasons I quit is I was concerned someone was going to since the "committee" had no idea what safety issues needed to be dealt with.

There is no interpretation of the rule. It is black and white. And if as you say it is a safety issue from 2 years ago, then ...

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

No one died 2 years ago at Eagleman.
I'm saying it happens at races though and you have to make decisions that you feel are best for everyone involved on that day.

2 years ago was a different head official ...... you take it from there.

I'm afraid you're right on this one. "A provided that B" is equivalent to "if B then A". But you're still committing the inverse error, as the USAT rule as written does not say what happens if the race doesn't have a plan ("A provided that B" is not the same as "A if and only if B").

On the "Keys to Success" page the rule is clearly stated with the decision belonging to the participants. And the WTA rules under which Eagleman runs give the participants the decision too.

Seattle is close to Mount Rainier. So you'd advise participants at Seafair (a dead flat bike along/across Lake Washington except for the bridge approaches) to bring roads bike with triples?

So he had two years to institute and publicize a no-wetsuits-over-78 rule? He didn't.