I'm in agreement with you. I replied to Dan asking whether or not they may have taken these host countries' beliefs into account and the well-being of the athletes.


I also agree the direction of change is important, also the rationale for the change. However, it seems like its a bad direction of change if it is motivated by the norms of these non-western countries regarding the LGBTQ. Yet its a good direction of change regarding the religious and political bans because it originated somewhere else that aligns more with western thinking? Again, that seems like a double standard.

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. "

Sport can definitely bring a good change, bring people together, and is usually the go to for things like bridging a gap, specifically because it is sport and nothing else. The neutrality brings people together. The athletics do the talking, not the age, race, gender, sexual preference, religion etc. It is used because it is neutral and holds no opinions. This is exactly what B Doughtie's argument is. Let sport be sport. Thats really an arguments supporting the idea that no personal demonstrations be allowed.

"Stick to sports" has been the rallying cry to silence dissenting viewpoints for decades. It was shouted at Muhammed Ali half a century ago and now he's praised as a civil rights leader. It was shouted at the St Louis Rams players running out of the tunnel in the "hands up/ don't shoot" pose (so without even the bad excuse of "but are chroooooops!"). It is, pointedly, never shouted at those using their platform to advocate for the status quo. It was not shouted at Alejandro Villanueva who abandoned his teammates to run out of the tunnel for the anthem. He didn't want to "stick to sports"; he wanted to make a statement. Where was the outrage? Crickets. No one complains about the NFL taking a bath in Pepto-Bismol every October, even though that's not sports (however fine a cause it is).

This is the root of the problem. Displays of entrenched and status quo viewpoints are viewed differently from displays or marginalized viewpoints. The inclusion of women and non-whites in a sport is obvious - Jackie Robinson "made a statement" by stepping out onto the field. The inclusion of LGBTQ is not so obvious, and that serves to keep that group disenfranchised. Back to the NFL, do you believe there are no gay players in that league? The notion is preposterous, but those who are there keep it secret because no one wants to be the first to come out and deal with the flak for "making a statement" of publicly being himself. Bristow (I think that was his name) carrying that flag across the line was "making the statement" of "you are not alone". The fact that the organizing body was bothered enough by that one, singe display to change the rule does come off as a chilling effect on gay athletes acknowledging their sexuality.

Further, "stick to sports" is a standard only ever applied to sports and athletes (and especially liberal athletes). There is no "stick to banking", "stick to oil", or "stick to baking". This is because the relatively equal distribution of physical talent makes sports the one public platform most available to minorities of all sorts. As a result, the powers that be invented a standard applied only to athletics (and only when used for liberal causes) to squelch its availability for that purpose.

---

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.

The idea that the rule is respecting the morals of non-Western countries, and objecting to this rule is forcing western values on non-western societies is I think incorrect.

I think that no matter where in the world you are, or what a majority of the people in that community believe, or what the government requires, making it illegal to be gay is objectively wrong. That's not a Western moral. It's a universal truth. But people are fallible and some communities are more wrong about this issue than others. Some - including ones that are embracing triathlon and exerting their influence on the sport, are so wrong that the punishment for being gay is DEATH. We cannot just say , eh... we need to respect their local values on this.

---

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

That matters, but not in the direction that you think it does.

---

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.

Further, "stick to sports" is a standard only ever applied to sports and athletes (and especially liberal athletes).

------------

Well what I'm saying is that who's to say X is honorable social justice to burn ITU at the stake, but Y social justice issue is ok'd to be "silenced"? So what if we just silence it all? That way everyone is either "oppressed" or no one is oppressed (will depend on how you view it) and so you can't then come back and say well your for X and against Y. Can we not just have it down the middle where we are neither for or against X or Y during the game and then after the fact we can talk all we want about it?

Is that only an oppressive viewpoint to take to say let's enjoy the sport for the sport itself?

---

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

I've clearly stated my stance on this. I hate that this has to even be an issue. But in playing devils advocate, I've gotten two of these cryptic responses. Those in opposition to this new rule amendment are not making a strong argument.

With regards to LGBTQ being allowed to make statements, but not religion or politics, please tell me in which way it matters then?

EricM told me they are VERY different and I should think about it. Rather than telling me. I'm asking legitimate questions because its really easy to see how one class is getting a pass while others are not. If I could see that then I wouldn't be posing the question. This is why I can understand those who don't have an issue with the new amendment.

It matters in that you appear to be making an argument based on the status quo ("LGBTQ is not a federally-protected category, therefor it's fine to discriminate against them"). Our point is "LGBTQ is not a federally-protected category, therefor we need to advocate for their rights lest they be casually discriminated against in all aspects of life". And again, these rules are never (functionally never) applied equally; they are applied to the weakest groups and ignored for the strongest.

---

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.

Do you see gay rights or other politics signs being displayed at the nfl games yesterday? Why is that? Because it’s banned by the NFL. Why don’t you start a protest against the nfl? The game is viewed by way more people than any triathlon will ever be. My point was that there is still plenty of opportunities and ways for athletes to display their pride if they want to. Hell even a gay nfl player can probably think of a lot of ways to support his community and gay rights without being allowed to wear rainbow cleats in the game.

Impossible in a union of national federations.

I might be able to see that argument, but that is an opinion that it is "more closely associated" with X vs Y. However, neither of those examples of groups have proven to be an inflammatory issue in the sense that statements need to be made. Thus far, religion, politics, and apparently gay pride seem to be the most inflammatory issues so they are the ones focused on. If something else arises in the future, say statements regarding women or athletes with disabilities then I'm sure amendments will be made also. And as long as these groups are allowed to race, and everyone has to play by the same rules, then whats the issue?

These groups are not being singled out. Because I could enter the race and even though I'm not gay, have a political agenda, or religious message to shout, I'm not allowed to bear flags or make statements either. And I'm not part of these groups. These groups are not being singled out. Everyone has to play by the same rules whether you identify as a member of these groups or not. And if they changed the rule and said everyone can wear whatever they want, then I could race by those new rules.

Bottom line, everyone is still allowed to race. What we're talking about is the luxury of being able to wear something that makes a statement. Would it be easier if the ITU said only non-modified uniforms are allowed? Everyone has to wear the same one and only 4 colors are available, take your pick. Does this solve an issue?

If you said why does it have to be about women, I would agree. Everyone out there is level on the same playing field. I worked closely with a group of athletes with disabilities whose main goal was to mainstream participation of those with disabilities into the same race as non-disabled racers. Racing as a charity member for this group was my very first triathlon, been hooked since. Their goal is to eliminate the need to see them in a different light, no barriers, but that they get to participate as much as possible without highlighting their "differences." It shouldn't be about women, or gays, or green party, or amputee, etc,...it should be about the sport. And when someone comes out and singles one of them out then it can be seen as harsh, but when someone comes out and says, everyone is equal, everyone is allowed to participate, just have a good time and don't make it about something else, then whats wrong with that?

Telling the LGBTQ racer to not wave a flag during the race is seen as oppressive. But telling the born again christian who's faith saved their life to not carry a bible or flag with a cross on it is acceptable? I don't see the fairness there. Either allow them all, or allow none. How can it not be seen that way?

If someone can eloquently tell me how and why the LGBTQ community should be allowed the exception to wave a flag instead of the devout religious or career politician, then I can no longer play devil's advocate.

Is it because their persecution has been much more recent in history? Is it something else? Thank you.

I didn't see any protests at any football games because I do not watch football. I have no idea about their rules regarding expressions of support for the LGBTQ community.

Are you saying that if the NFL does it, then the tri community should do it too? Because that means we should allow broad categories of doping that are banned by WADA. We should ban any testing for the substances that remain illegal. We should turn a blind eye to terrible violence committed by our athletes if they are fast enough unless the public outcry threatens our pocketbooks. Yes... Let's use the NFL as model for our sport. Sounds awesome.

---

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

But that's not true. Women are not included on that list. The disabled are not included on that list. This list is very finite and limited. They ARE picking who is allowed to make a statement and who is not. This is not a "ban all statements" rule.

---

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

Totally agree this rule causes more problems then it solves

i believe i absolutely understand the argument you're making, and i understand its merits. but you don't understand the argument we're making. i can't imagine what each of us might learn if one of the arguments made is just not understood. and i can't imagine what might be written to help you better understand it. first you must want to understand it. you don't have to agree with it. but if you have no interest in understanding it, we're sort of at an impasse.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Ah ok I see what you meant. First and foremost, I never said that it was OK to discriminate against anyone. Those quotes make it seem like I said that. Farthest thing from my points.

Thats also not what I was getting at with my replies. My point was that the rule specifies groups that have been all been discriminated against, and IN THIS SITUATION there is no uproar that it includes a group that is federally protected by a legal system. There is a lot of support to allow people with a specific sexual preference to be able to go untouched while no-one is batting an eye over someones religious beliefs. That part is puzzling to me. I would expect people who fear for the continued discrimination of groups be more sympathetic to ALL groups being subjected to this abhorrent discrimination.

I'm not saying its ok to discriminate because of X Y and Z. Im saying it can be tough to even see discrimination when the rule in question is regarding objects and symbols of things not germane to the sport, and applied across the board while still allowing everyone to participate.

This whole thing begs the question, "What is it about the LGBTQ community that should allow them more freedom in the rules than other discriminated classes?"

thank you for asking that question. we've been answering that question intermittently in this thread. what we need is for you to read what we're saying, so that you can answer that question.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i believe i absolutely understand the argument you're making, and i understand its merits. but you don't understand the argument we're making. i can't imagine what each of us might learn if one of the arguments made is just not understood. and i can't imagine what might be written to help you better understand it. first you must want to understand it. you don't have to agree with it. but if you have no interest in understanding it, we're sort of at an impasse.



I'm not trying to be obtuse by any means. I apologize if its come off that way. I also have no dog in this fight, other than I want a clean and fun race opportunity.

I do want to understand the issue. I consider myself a man of principle, and I like to know the reasons for certain things. So my real question for this whole debate is what makes discriminated groups different? Or more importantly what makes one more deserving of rights than another? Thats all I'm asking.

If it helps, I would be asking the same questions and playing the same devil's advocate if it was religion that was being argued, but not sex, or politics. Or if it was people with brown hair, but not blue hair or red hair. Do you see what I'm saying? Effectively, there is argument for support of one discriminated class, while at the same time saying that another discriminated class doesn't deserve the same support. Its confusing to me.

Let me try and address your point as I see where you are coming from.

Why the ITU needs the rule to say anything more than 'athletes need to avoid any kind of demonstration of propoganda'? Doesn't that cover everything? Why add words like political or racial? I don't know the answer but by specifying political, racial, religious and sexual orientation you are singling out those aspects and lumping them together as bad. Gender propoganda, food propaganda (think vegans vs keto-diet), climate change propaganda, etc. that stuff is all OK according to the ITU. So what is about race, politics, religion and sexual orientation that are uniquely bad? More to the point what about sexual orientation necessitates its inclusion as needing to be specifically banned?

What myself and others are angry about is not that LGBTQ issues are being put on level footing with to religious or political issues. The anger is direct at the need to designated LGBTQ issues as 'bad' in the first palce. A coherent argument needs to be presented for why each activity is banned and we don't feel that argument can be justified for sexual orientation.

The simple solution is to replace the word propoganda with prejudice. The law should read 'athletes need to avoid any kind of demonstration of religious, political, sexual identity or racial prejudice.' In fact this could be a big win for the ITU as it would position itself as a defender of equality.

I know I posted about Teebow and Colin earlier, but that's still different. They are employees. Entrants paying for a race are a bit different.

You'd have to claim essentially that the anthem in football is part of their pay as a paid entertainment performer. As I get it, that part wasn't ever mandatory or even televised a long time ago. But, turned into a platform for patriotism, national pride, honoring troops, honoring responders, etc.... Thus, making it pretty much non-PC to choose to not participate.

With the ITU, maybe the pros you could see as independent contractors. Even then, it's a stretch.

If it's a private organization, they can limit the speech. They can't limit entrants using discrimination, but that's how it is.

Otherwise, how could places like Fox have the opinion piece folks they have? If you had to respect that in that organization you essentially couldn't fire or would be forced to consider hiring a liberal for the opinion section. Thus alienating their base and risking financial loss.

It's not ideal, feels really unfair, and I don't like it one bit..........but that's how it is in the US.

We gave a lot of power to companies in the late 1860s during the railroad strikes that ran across the country. And power to local/state/feds to do a lot of stuff we see today. All in the interest of "capital" and not "people".

That's the "why" if anyone cares to do anything about it.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post, or which which side of the debate the point is supporting....

I do believe that much of it applies to the US, not the wider world. In the US, private companies actually CAN deny entry to certain classes of people as long as that does not include protected classes, like race or religion. Currently in the US you can deny service to someone due to their sexual orientation.

---

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

you're being obtuse

---

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.”

I would argue that certain religions should not be protected classes in the first place.

---

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.”

let me see if i can distill this. religions come and go. tribes come and go. (any goths out there? is there a pictish triathlon club?) there are 3 groups of people who don't come and go - who, throughout history, just about everywhere, with few exceptions, are harangued, diminished, looked on with disdain or are the subjects of violence: women; physically disabled; and those we're considering now. we have identified 2 of those groups in sport and have said to the world, no, you cannot disenfranchise these. that is, you can disenfranchise them in your country for 364 days. just not during that day when we come into your country to produce a race.

you will never see the NFL or the NBA or the ITU write or say a damned thing about "propaganda" regarding challenged athletes or women. you'll see pink armbands, shoes, shoelaces, headbands. and rightly so. and no, it's not because it's cancer. it's because it's a specific cancer that predominantly afflicts our women. we have chosen to champion and lift up 2 of the 3 historic groups that need specific help.

yes, if you are gay, you may participate in a triathlon. if you remain silent. invisible. closeted. if you make double darn sure that we don't know you're gay, then you may participate. this is the insidiousness of it. we do absolutely nothing, zero, to let the world know that here, in triathlon, there's a safe harbor for the LGBT community. and because one person, once, in an ITU race, flew a rainbow flag at the finish of an AG race, we've now come up with THIS rule, which doesn't say "don't fly a flag." it says, be careful of the color of your shoelaces. too much color? DQ. rainbow sticker on your bike's top tube? DQ. you may say that no, the rule doesn't say that. really? reread the rule.

what i want is for a gay man to come to a triathlon and know that he's found a safe harbor. we need to make special protections for him. we need to send a special invitation to him. because we made a special effort to let us know how much he wasn't wanted throughout history (and i mean up to the very recent history, and still today). we've made it mandatory that he stay silent. we need to cure that. this is our gap to close.

here is what i *think* i have learned as president of our industry group, traveling around talking to people in groups not represented sufficiently in triathlon (black, hispanic, women, gay, gen-y, etc.). it's not enough for the old white men to invite young white men. or women. or gay or black people. into triathlon. women need to invite women. black people need to invite black people. and so forth. this is what works. we need to empower people who aren't us (white men) to invite people in their cohort. men don't empower women. women empower women. men just need to get out of the way.

how do you allow LGBT community members to empower each other? invite each other? let each other know this is where you'll find safe harbor? how does this rule do that? how do we do that in spite of this rule? you tell me.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Being Gay is not a choice. Religion is.

Same as skin/hair/eye colour. You can't ban or discriminate against those and you can't (shouldn't) ban and discriminate against sexual orientation. The world stage is the place to be open about it. The world stage is where this sort of statement belongs.

---

NCCP certified Comp coach

Just ignore the rule and let your freak (not meant as derrogatory) flag fly. Wear rainbow socks, paint your bike a rainbow, have sponsors change their logos to rainbows, have RDs have rainbow water cups at aid stations, give out skittles, get DQed until they address it.

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7