I'd bet you got an old version of it. I got one at a race this year that says:

"Drafting -- following a leading cyclist closer than
three bike lengths and failing to pass within 15 seconds"

Note that the "or exit the draft zone" part isn't there. The good news is that the race director made a copy available - some races don't put it, or anything like it, into their packets. The bad news is that sometimes the same sheet will get reused year after year, without checking that its current. I'd suggest emailing the race director about it.

I was the Head Ref at this event. I provided that message to the RD although it's a standard USAT form. And you're absolutely correct, it's an outdated copy. As a result of your keen observance, I've updated my copy. I apologize for the confusion but, OTOH, it's nice to know that it was read so carefully.

I sent the race organization that message plus a flier that explains the bar end plug issue. The RD, Ann Meyers, was very cooperative in getting that information out to the athletes. During the race, we saw a low number of infractions on the course and open bar ends were practically non-existent. In other races of that size, we would have dozens of competitors showing up with open bar ends and completely unaware that they need to be plugged.



Larry

Maybe its just me, but I do not like this new interpretation of the rule. I am 100% against drafting - but on the other hand I do not want to see triathlon become an event where one is penalized and/or DQ'ed for merely challenging another competitor. This is basically rewarding the stronger cyclists because if you have the guts to try to challenge a ride but for whatever reason are not able to actually pass....you are penalized!?

Why would the attempt to pass be a penalty? Its not as if the rider did anything wrong - in fact, he/she did exactly what we would want to see in a race: someone pushing the race; pushing their own boundaries; and pushing the other competitors. The fact that they were "unsuccessful" does not mean they should be seen as violating a rule. Should the inability to pass (i.e. be a "weaker cyclist") now be lumped in with people who block paths, use abusive language, receives unauthorized assistance, abandons equipment on the course, etc.? Why are criminalizing the competitive spirit? I'm sorry - I believe the "pass or exit within 15 seconds" is the much better approach.

Thank God the inability to pass prohibition hasn't expanded to the run. We would have missed some great Allen/Scott battles and the recent Macca/Leder battle in Germany. I mean - how dare those second placers not win that final stretch - ban them from the sport! OK - maybe that's a bit overboard, but the same principal applies here. The curent rule application would punish the "second place" cyclist.

My $0.02.

Alan

As Slowman pointed out in the original thread, without this interpretation of this rule, a savvy racer could circumvent the no-draft rule by moving into the draft zone for 15 seconds and then dropping out, and then moving back in and then dropping out... etc. etc. By repeating this all the way through the bike leg, he can effectively draft for the entire leg. Moreover, another savvy racer could use this intepretation to his advantage to get his challengers penalized by speeding up and forcing the challengers to abandon the pass (and therefore, run afoul of the rule).

As you point out, this interpretation is fundamentally unfair to the rules-abiding competitor who attmepts to pass, but is unable to do so. I agree with Dan that this rule needs to be updated, if possible, which was probably the reason he brought it up.



--> Steve

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

It isn't a new interpretation. Rule 5.10b establishes a draft zone which, for age groupers, extends to the rear 7 meters from the leading edge of the front wheel and one meter to both sides of the center of the bicycle. Under rule 5.10a, it's a violation to allow your draft zone to intersect with the draft zone of another cyclist. Rule 5.10h describes 3 exceptions to rule 5.10a. The first is when entering the drafting zone from the rear, closing the gap, and overtaking all within no more than 15 seconds. Rule 5.10e clearly explains how a pass should be accomplished and that there is no provision for a failed passing attempt. The text of the rules has been revised for clarity but they're functionally the same as always.

The old version of the "Message from the Head Referee" was subject to misinterpretation on this point which is probably why it was re-written.

Larry

New interpretation/new enforcement/old misiinterpretation...regardless, I feel that any rule which has or could have the effect of chilling competition in our sport is not a rule that I can support. Sure, a savvy racer could pull behind someone for 15 seconds, exit and repeat ad nauseum....but I would think the effort of catching back up, falling behind, catching back up, falling behind would be less beneficial than merely maintaining a steady pace. Maybe there should be a provision that allows for exception for an "attempt to pass" with officials given discretion. Sure, that would create some arguments, but that risk exists in other judgement calls today.

Alan