which broadcasts loud and clear the color of your welcome mat.

------

Except you would be clueless as to what I'm welcoming to this sport. Like I said, I've coached gays, I've coacheed blacks, I've coached whites, I've coached slow people, fast people, professionals, newbies. Not once did I care about their sexual orientation, their beliefs, their political stances, I've cared about them as athletes.

So Dan you can have your opinoin and I'll just tell you loud and clear to go to hell if your trying to say that I'm trying to "oppress" people.

And with that you can openly ban me, cus this is your sandbox.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Thank you for that response. The point that I'll make is that I'm ok with sports "hiding" who you are. Not that I mean oppressing, but more in the light that I don't really care who you are or what you believe. I just care for a fair race. I don't care that you support Trump or that you are and Christmas only Christian or that you "play for the other team" (Seinfeld reference). I just care for the fairest/cleanest conditions possible in a race. I dont need cultural demonstrations in the field of play. I'm more for just letting the athlete in you be showcased in sports.

I'm sorry if that means I'm "not welcoming", I actually think it's the purest most simple logic about it. So it seems all they have done is here added sexual orientation to religion/political politics being banned. If that now means that 1 group feels oppressed, I'm sorry that's the case. It's in my viewpoint/stance that I would hope it not be, but if you feel oppressed, I can't really say how the next man feels. I can do as much as I can to make it a safe place, and apparently this ruling seems to not do that. I'm just asking how it's not (you are suggesting it's now going to stunt the growth of acceptance), if it's trying to remove all the politics out of the field of play.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

thank you. i know i can ban you. but i'd rather be comforted in the knowledge that you understood what some of us are saying. if you understand, and you disagree, fine. do you understand? can you convincingly present the argument and and others are presenting? so that we all know you appreciate the issue? (and i'm happy to do the same in reverse if you want.)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Most people can see the difference between someone grabbing a US (or other national) flag, a "Roll Tide" banner, or a rainbow scarf vs. taking a swastika, a Confederate flag, a poster advocating polygamy, or a billboard plugging Ford (or Chevy) pickup trucks and running down the finish chute with it.

However, ITU probably needs to go with the "One guy pooped his pants so everyone will wear diapers in the future" approach. Allow nothing other than your tri suit, helmet/hat, sunglasses, and shoes while you're on the course and during the podium ceremony. "Feel free to wear your MAGA hats and wave your rainbow flags while you're unloading/loading your car in the parking lot, but we're not prepared to be seen as advocating for nor discriminating against any group or organization."

If a major sponsor ever comes on board willing to pony up a few hundred $million, ITU can let athletes wear hats/carry flags with the sponsors logo.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I can understand the view. However, what concerns me is that if I'm suggesting we take out all the social commentary in sports, and just let it be a competition, that I'm in favor of only being "welcoming" of certain segments with that viewpoint????? That when I read ITU's ruling, to me it sounds like as I said to the other gentleman, they are simply getting rid of demonstrations A-Z, but somehow only X group is being "oppressed"? That's the part that I'm a bit unclear on if your trying to then tell me I'm "not welcoming", if I have a viewpoint of taking out all the social commentary viewpoints. I would think it's the opposite, I'm not for or against rainbow touting people, I'm for the race being clear of all of that.

Now if your saying that the gay/lesbian community feels oppressed now, that's not my intent with saying "take out all social commentary", as I'm actually trying to have a viewpoint that is welcoming to all. So as I think Ed said earlier, he would allow for "good" groups to demonstrate, but "bad" groups couldnt. My thought is, what if we just dont allow any group to demonstrate in the actual field of play? What if we simply celebrate the athlete- not the gay athlete or the straight athlete or the black athlete or the mixed athlete or the slow athlete, but the ATHLETE.

But if it's truly being done to "oppress" a group, then yeah let's figure it out. But if I have a viewpoint that is trying to take out all oppression by removing all status, how are you then saying "I'm not welcoming" with my logic?

ETA: So it dawned on me....I'm basically trying to "silent" all groups, and just make it about the athlete. Nothing less, nothing more. If an group needs sporting arena to "demonstrate", and if it doesn't get that then that sport is now "not welcoming", that's just an viewpoint that I won't agree with. Sports doesn't matter who you are, it matters how you play the game. You don't need to be any particular race/religion/sexual orientation to do that.

Final edit: So again this is your sandbox, but your also a very infleuntial person in this sport. I certainly don't appreciate you putting that statement on me. As pissed off as you seem to be, that's pissed me off with you accusing me of being "welcoming" to only certain groups. This will be the last I speak on this topic, I've said my piece, I've read others. I appreciate where their stance is, I'd appreciate you could see mine and not put words on me that I've not spoken.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Why add that specific language and why now? Is the additional specific language reactive to ongoing issues or incidents? However, the sport has been around long enough to determine basic ground rules, so it would seem it’s either reactive to relatively recent ongoing issues or being influenced from entities (with certain agendas) that also financially support/influence the sport decision makers (ITU).

There is a huge leap that the rule has been created for anything to do with the rainbow flag, that the rule is anti LGBTQI (as opposed to protecting all competitors) and came about as a result of a complaint. Apologies if I missed this, but where is there anything to support this?

I would be very very very upset if I was to find out that the ITU was to be biased against members of the rainbow community, and again if ether of the national bodies that I have relationships with were to align with such a view. But I'm not swayed as of yet that this was the intent. I can see how it's been possible to extrapolate this view, but I still see 100 more likely reasons for the wording and that this was at worst an inadvertent byproduct of a rule with another intent, or something that is a complete misunderstanding of the rule and there is nothing at all to do with the flag. Let's face it, if you want to ban someone carrying a rainbow flag over the line a rile that says 'no rainbow flags over the line' would seem a way better way to word it.

I think the answer to that goes well beyond what can be discussed at this forum. It's akin to my religion is better than yours and my God is the one and only. So I will leave it here is you don't mind.

I wish I could draw a cartoon I have in my head. Someone breaking the tape in the 100 meters or standing on a podium with a medal and looking back to see the media attention with cameras and microphones focused on a group of athletes smiling proudly with various huge flags.... "free palastine", "fair trade for all", "free Tibet", "Pro choice", "stop animal testing", "equal pay" , "recovering addicts", "feed the hungry", "democracy for all"....

The article angle makes it look like lgbt is unfairly singled out under a loophole but the existing rule already included that to be fair to other causes that have been asked the same forever. Isnt this the safest way to keep sport welcoming to athletes and spectators from the widely diverse backgrounds while keeping focus on the competition?

Good, because you've been trying to bait me into saying something I wasn't saying for about three back-and-forths. Either you believe people have certain rights or you don't, and if it's up to the whims of a country you don't believe people have those rights. It sounds like you fall into the latter camp, but I suppose we'll never know.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Most people are seeming to come around

Support for polygamy is about twice what it was 15 years ago. Twenty years from now people might be wondering what the hell we were doing celebrating a sport (ITU triathlon) where the average athlete is burning multiples of the average citizens carbon footprint while the UN tells us the climate is tipping on the edge of irreversible change. So easy to be on the right side of history.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Disclaimer, I'm against these rules and I wish everyone could just f*cking race without caring about what anyone else is wearing or doing. But I digress.Looking at this as objectively as possible, I can see both arguments. I'm playing devil's advocate here:

People were persecuted and killed for religious beliefs all throughout history. People have been persecuted and harmed for political reasons also. The ability to express your political feelings or religious feelings can be a proud moment also for many people who have a good moral compass and lead good lives.

So this whole thing is a bit of a double standard if its acceptable to suppress religious and political demonstrations but its oppressive if the LGBTQ can't. Why are their exceptions to the protected? <-- this is where I think most people scratch their heads.

I think this is just bad timing and execution of them introducing this rule amendment to make it an all or none situation. They hold races in all parts of the world, and they're and INTERNATIONAL Triathlon Union, and this seems like them doing due diligence to acknowledge the world holds vastly different beliefs, so they don't want to add fuel to an already blazing fire.

The ITU has never (from what I know) asked people about their beliefs or moral code prior to registering for a race. And they haven't said anyone can't race. So to say they are hindering progress is inaccurate, because they can register, race, and even win without any pushback at all. I think people like B Doughtie just want to know why everyone is OK with the rainbow getting the special treatment when equally as important beliefs like political and religious have been banned much before this new amendment.

If someone wants to argue that the LGBTQ movement takes precedence over religious, political, or other protected issues, then thats different discussion.

I say let them all in.

one of these things is VERY different from the other two... think about it.

---

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.”

Dan, they are established as an International union. And they hold races in al parts of the world, is it possible that this seemed like the more prudent thing to do given more participation in areas that are outwardly unaccepting of the LGBTQ community? This amendment could quell the potential issues. We have our set of morals but not everyone shares them. Should we expect them to? Would it be better for the sport to not race in those areas than to disallow religious, sexual preference, or political statements? This is assuming this is the reason for the amendment. I can honestly see them saying "OK, you know what liberal discussion and expression of religion, sex, and politics is not well received in their culture. We already removed religious and political statements in the rules, we may need to add sexual orientation as well to cover all of the bases."

I mentioned in another reply that religion and political opinions were all things that people were historically persecuted for. Bodily harm or death to those, or family members definitely kept people quiet and compliant throughout history as well. Yet the ITU bans statements of those natures. I think some are looking for justification as to why the LGBTQ items get a pass, but religious and political don't.

What should be more important is that they are allowed to send any message before an after the race. Do live facebook feeds, get interviewed, setup your own press coverage, blare music and wear whatever shirt you want and fly whatever flag you want...but before and after the race. And that goes for everyone. I am an open and inclusive person, but I don't see the outrage here.

No-one is being banned from racing, isn't that the bigger message here? Its about being inclusive in the sport, and everyone is allowed to toe the same line, use the same aid stations, and win the same prizes. How is that not inclusive?

As I said before, let them all in.

You're right, religion is the only federally protected class in that lineup. LGBTQ can be covered under Civil Rights Acts and Political affiliation discrimination is defensible legally as well. But religion is federally protected for us in the US.

If one is more protected than the others then I don't know that and I genuinely don't know how to tell that. Which is why I said that may be a different discussion. Im playing devil's advocate. Why should sexual orientation be given a free pass over religious or political statements? Thats what needs answering for people who don't see an issue with this rule change.

I think this may be involved in a larger context. I don't know for sure, because the ITU hasn't talked yet. But I'm speculating it may have to do with some host countries.

The IOC went through an ordeal with Russia during the Sochi Olympics. Russia has been increasingly hostile to gays, using laws (that also use the term "propaganda") to stop dissent. The IOC did what it had to do, which is fight back. And a tenuous peace was established where Russia promised that gay athletes and spectators would not be bothered as long as they didn't act up and do dramatic protests (not just the athletes, like Smith/Carlos - still against IOC rules), but the spectators as well. A promise just for the Olympics. Of course per the Streisand effect, there was a lot of protesting that took place that used the Olympics as a backdrop if not a venue.

I'm sure other countries with social laws and norms dramatically different than the "western standard" took notice. E.g. countries like the UAE that have government laws that impose the death penalty on homosexuality.

There's been plenty of debate on this forum about some of these countries, and whether their sponsorship money should be taken, and competitions be held in those countries. The argument *for* being inclusive of those countries is that sport can help bring change. It brings people together, etc. Show that women can wear bathing suits in public in a sporting context, and maybe it's OK. Or show that gay athletes are mostly just good athletes.

But the direction of that change is important. The change was supposed to be moderating the more regressive tendencies.

But if the change is going the other way, making the governing body conform to the mores of the host country, that's not what was supposed to happen.

If this is the case, I'd prefer the ITU be more like the IOC was with Russia and re-affirm its inclusive stance. Even if that re-affirmation accompanied a re-iteration that competition is not supposed to be used as protest venue.

If it's not the case and this is purely a procedural move that has nothing to with Abu Dhabi, then I've wasted a lot of time!

that's exactly what was occurring when jack bristow flew the rainbow flag over his head at Leeds last year. it had everything to do with sport.

being gay is not an affliction, but i'd like to draw a parallel to, say, type 1 diabetes, in that you're anonymous in plain sight. when you wear your team type 1 kit, i think it's in large part to say, "see? you can do THIS and it's safe and it's good and you're welcome here."

how much more so if you've gone through the most basic questions of your own identity, and you're looking for communities in which you can insinuate yourself safely. being gay is not like an affinity group. you're not flying the flag at the finish that says, "narrow gauge railway fans, unite!" i don't mean to speak for the LGBT community, but it means hiding in plain sight from folks who hate you, some who try to kill you, after you spent a good part of your early years hiding from yourself, perhaps hating yourself.

this just didn't need to be done. this was like making a rule against running backwards in all ITU races that take place on thursdays: a rule was made for an almost nonexistent occurrence. i therefore think that this is a process that ought to see some sunlight. how and why was this rule made? if you find this rule was made in order to placate an oppressive regime, are you still good with it?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't know for sure, because the ITU hasn't talked yet.

---------

I'm unsure of the rush to make a social commentary point w/ Dan's article, when the actual meat of the discussion isn't even known. Isn't that a "rush to judgement" that most reasonable people are against.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Nature abhors a vacuum. :) And so far, that's what the ITU has given us.

When did Mike Pence get elected to the ITU Board?

People are overreacting here. The best way to represent your cause is by how you live your life everyday and not some bullshit 30 second flag display at a sporting event. There are 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year so if that’s not enough for you then go complain on the internet,

The government of Abu Dhabi approves this message. :) Put your head down and just go about your business.

Sport has a long history of excluding groups of people based in gender, race and sexual orientation. Making this rule is going in the wrong direction.

And whether this is the "best" way to express who you are or not doesn't matter. The question is are we being welcoming and inclusive or are we being exclusive and repressive? Which do we want to be?

Simply representing this cause by "how you live your life" gets nothing done at all. Members of the LGBTQ community are very often not identifiable by sight. They have to do something if they want to make an impact even if it is just for themselves. And if they want to contribute to making members of that community being accepted in our sport, there has to be a way to express it, if they choose. And when they do choose to express it, we should say, "Hey! We're glad you're here!" not, "SHHHHH! Keep that to yourself!"

---

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

the lineup does not include other federally protected groups. women as an example. in my mind, LGBT is more closely associated with gender than with, say, religion. gender is not mentioned in this list of things you can't protest against, nor physical disability? why? because sport goes out of its way to enfranchise these two groups that have been historically discriminated against, not just in society, but on the field of play. so...

if i said, "why does it have to be about women? why can't it just be about sport?" i would get flayed, and rightly so. the LGBT community is freighted with much that has depressed female participation in sport, without all the other issues that attach to being a part of this community.

in sum, the ITU has chosen which underrepresented groups to enfranchise, and i'm glad it did. with this rule change it chose which group not to enfranchise.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I’m boycotting ITU. It’ll be easy too since I’m too fat, slow, and poor to participate anyway...

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!