In Reply To:
I think your analogy just doesn't work because you really cannot analyze oranges if you are looking at apples.
Um, that's sort of what analogies are for.
But fine, imagine a duathlon scheduled to go in Death Valley on a 2-lap out-and-back on the southern (flat) part of Scotty's Castle Road. That would be no trouble for anyone on a tri bike with a double and 11-23 gearing. The bike leg is advertised as "flat and fast."
Suppose there's a chance of construction near the turnaround, the RD has known this for two years, but he doesn't tell anyone. On race day the construction is in fact in place and the RD announces, 1 hour before the race, that the race instead will go up and down Daylight Pass (4000'+) twice. I'm sure some of the more top-heavy athletes would not be happy about that. Do you think that they would have the right to be upset or would you say "learn to climb"?
An analogy is a comparison of two things that are similar in some respects but dissimilar in others. Here the similarities to the Eagleman swim are that: 1) the RD knew (or should have known) that he'd need a contingency plan; 2) there was a solution of minimal impact and effort available (for Eagleman, doing what I suggested several posts ago versus running more laps on a smaller segment of Scotty's Castle Road for this example); and 3) the RD chose the solution of most impact.
The dissimilarities are: 1) du vs. tri; 2) swim vs. bike; and 3) no rules were made up on the spot in my example; and, sure 4) my example is hypothetical.
It is possible to reasonably say "no, don't complain" for my example but "yes, complain" for Eagleman because of dissimilarity #2. I don't think it would be reasonable to go the other way around.
Do I have to call myself out for condescension for this post?