Go race in AL / MS /FL / LA, your group would be one of many. I am a white heterosexual male, and I'm effectively a closet atheist. I don't talk religion but I'm pretty much the only one with his eyes open during pre- race prayer.
I am not sure if one could safely do certain races here in rainbow. Safely as in, unharmed.
However, the guy that shows up to races in Mississippi in full Confederate body paint is warmly welcomed.

Just to make clear, I'm not really too stressed out about it all, I'm bigger, stronger, faster and smarter plus I'm too old to get a headache. What ITU is doing is making official what I describe above. But they do it to a group of people that already face continuous discrimination. There are very bad historical examples of this kind of actions.

---

NO

i think the operative difference - if you want to ban stuff from races - are expressions that enfranchise versus those that prohibit or discriminate. speech that embraces versus hates. excludes versus includes. and, not just speech, but behavior.

accordingly, the ITU has been on the right side of history on women's inclusion. women's equality. women's access. so, just insert for "women's" any other group, in any country, that is widely recognized by an educated and illuminated society as being disenfranchised. here in america - and in most enlightened societies - we hold that you should not be discriminated against because of your color, gender, religion, physical ability, or sexual preference. the ITU has pretty much appropriated that ethic. except as regards sexual preference, apparently.

so, let's not conflate "freedom of speech" with the ethic the ITU has rightly adopted, which is, sport draws us together. sport is about inclusion. when religious expressions are okay but sexual preference expressions are not, i think it's fair to ask why that is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

x1000

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I don't think it's very political to speak up for human rights for all people. It's just a given

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Have to disagree with you here. Displaying the rainbow flag is an expression of wanting all people to be able to live with their sexual orientation out in the open and not have to worry about discrimination or repercussions. They aren't spreading a message of trying to infringe on anyone's rights or remove those rights from them.

That "marriage = man + woman" message is explicitly trying to deny the right to marry to gay people. Not all messages are equal in their intent, and so not all messages should be treated equally.

As ITU is an international governing body, I have no idea what their obligations are towards allowing or disallowing certain forms of expression, but at best this is entirely tone deaf on the part of the ITU.

Were you able to find this out?

Who is/was the ITU is targeting here?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Am I the only that finds it Alanis Morrissette ironic that a guy with homo in his name is the one defending this ITU rule the most?

Yes, I'm aware his username is a latin phrase, a supposed famous religious quote, and a painting. Nevertheless....



Yes, it's a stupid rule and one ITU will likely regret.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Well, let's hope ...

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

This was exactly my thought. They cover their bodies for religious purposes.

I lost all respect for the ITU.

Dan get some Slowtwitch Flag stickers or maybe a rainbow with the logo and I’ll by one for all my bikes.

We need to stop the hate

I have clarified flags other than a country's flag, which, IMHO, is also a political and sometimes religious symbol.

I read the rule. It's in the article. I don't think it's at all a stretch to extrapolate why they added sexual orientation this year.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

No interference with other athletes and can’t tell you how many athletes and spectators that appreciated it and Thanked me

]

The difference between wearing a shirt that says "marriage = man + woman" and displaying a pride flag is pretty big:

"marriage = man + woman" is saying to people that you want to prevent them from being able to marry the person they love and all that goes with that. It means you want to prohibit them from engaging in some of the most important and fulfilling aspects of life. Even though it has no impact on you whatsoever.

Displaying a pride flag simply says that you support equal rights and respect for LGBQ people.

One is a message of discrimination and hate. The other is a message of inclusion and respect. One is directed at limiting rights and freedom for a class of people and the other is about NOT restricting freedom.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

As an old white conservative Christian heterosexual male, I would never wear a kit like yours. During a race, it would make me smile and remind me that the race is fun and inclusive! Thanks for sharing!

---

Team Zoot So Cal

Ecce-homo means "here is the man" or "here you have the man" in Latin. It's what Pontius Pilate said to the masses when he brought Jesus Christ to them. However, I picked the name from Frederick Nietzsche's auto biography, also called Ecce-Homo, and which I find hilarious.

Look, I am not religious, I am not gay, but I've had plenty of gay friends and I don't have any issues with gay expression. What I am debating here is that the ITU is after gay expression with this rule change. To me they are after any type of expression that is not sports related and is potentially conflicting. The world is huge, culture is diverse and we have to respect that. What sounds OK in the US or in Spain, where I come from, can be insulting in other countries. To believe that all form of expressions that are OK in our country should be accepted elsewhere encompasses a feeling of moral superiority.

I am very sad that the world is turning to a place where once certain things are said, the debate is over. Some one grabs a rule from the ITU interprets it however they like, and as long as it is in alignment with a hot topic, the debate is over.

So; rainbows are forbidden but hiyabs are allowed

I think you are taking it too far. You can race if you are black, white or yellow. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Taoist or Hindi. You can race if you are Republican, Democrat, Communist or Anarchist. You can also race if you are a man or a woman, independently of your sexual orientation.

What the rule says is you cannot make propaganda of any of the above during an ITU sanctioned event.

In the case of sexual orientation it applies just as well to the rainbow flag as to an extreme Islamist making propaganda that women are the source of all evil and should stay at home.

What I understand ITU is after with this is to avoid conflict in a very diverse world. What might be OK in the US could potentially cause a riot in other countries. I would be very upset however if somebody got disqualified for making propaganda of their sexual orientation, and others did not get disqualified for making political, racial or religious propaganda.

The problem is exactly that it treats these two things the same. As Dan said, messages of hate and discrimination being banned is different from messages of inclusion and respect and they should not be treated as equivalent.

Edit - if a certain country wants to ban certain kinds of speech - they can do that and if the ITU decides to hold a race in one of those countries, the law will suffice. They do not need to implement their own rule that will affect all races in all countries.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

In your discussions with the ITU, it might be helpful to point out that this is being discussed across multiple platforms - in addition to Slowtwitch, the Pathetic Triathletes facebook group is discussing it:

https://www.facebook.com/...nk/1184378545074161/

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

So what happens if Graeme Obree enters an ITU race wearing the rainbow stripes?

We probably share the same moral standards, but I don't believe I am morally superior to those that don't. I infer from your post that you believe to be morally superior to those that don't. You may be right, but that is the essence of the problem.

People in other countries have the right to have different beliefs. And at the very minimum, be given time to adapt.

I'm making no statement at all about my own moral standards vs. anyone else's. All I am saying is that ITU should not introduce discriminatory and exclusionary rules that they apply to all events in the world in order to satisfy cultural or political pressure from certain countries.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

ecce-homo wrote:

What I am debating here is that the ITU is after gay expression with this rule change.

Here is the rule change from the official ITU document. (page 7):



They only added two words to the existing rule, and I can't find any other way to interpret it than an intent to target gay expression. Now it could be relatively harmless, like maybe it was an oversight to leave out those two words in the past, and some bureaucrat thought the clause should be broader even though there was no particular incident (that I'm aware of) driving the rule change.

Or they could have been explicitly pressured to add them by some party.

Occam's razor suggests the latter to me. But only the ITU board knows.

I take issue with the term "propaganda". Propaganda is almost always used with pejorative intent, e.g. it's not just advocacy or expression, but the use of biased or fraudulent information used to deceive. Even if they did want to broadly ban social or political expression in an event, I'd prefer they find some other word.

but a "sexual orientation" display could also mean someone running with flag promoting straight marriage only, depending on how you want to read the definition. I think the ITU are just covering all the bases and I don't really blame them.

---

the world's still turning? >>>>>>> the world's still turning