Power13 wrote:
But we aren't talking about a top 10 AG result, are we?
Top 5 AG run and top 10 AG swim...plenty of people have partial, yet highly significant goals (or measurements of success) like that. The gal who was listed 6th on the run or 11th on the swim could certainly be considered to have been cheated of satisfaction, recognition, self-assessed success, whatever.
Above, you said
Quote:
You should have been 92nd instead of 93rd? Are you that shallow about your results?
So, exactly how shallow is one allowed to be about results, split placings etc. [in a RACE]? If someone wanted to go for a long swim,bike and run on their own time and tell someone they did it faster than they really did, then I grant you, that person is mainly cheating themself...and, I'd argue, the person they lied to, depending on their reason for telling that person about the accomplishment to begin with. But this goes beyond that.
Your appeal to a sense of proportion in discussions like this one is a losing proposition, since the entire freaking activity is a game to begin with. It's very, very simple - if you're going to play the game, play by the rules. It does not matter one bit whether you're racing for the win or racing to beat the time limit. It's the same game. Play fair, or don't play. Trying to assign relative value to the "impact" of someone not playing fair based on where they are in the field or whether what they did is as bad as what Lance did misses the point completely. Of course, YMMV.