Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Irishathlete] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 9:52

Post #101 of 142 (2358 views)

Irishathlete wrote:

I've read through the thread and what's abundantly clear is nobody knows what infraction she was DQd for yet most people think it's fine she was DQd.
I'm surprised athletes are so damning without details, although maybe not so surprising given the way the world cancels people these days.
Each to their own I suppose. I'll hold any opinion until the infraction is public knowledge.

Thoes was disqualified for accepting outside assistance. The appeal notification confirmed this. I trust the referee in charge to make a reasonable decision, which they did: DQ. On that basis (in the absence of any other info) I think it's fine she was DQ'd. Her coach trisutto blogged that she shouldn't have been DQ'd and there's a "great story to tell". That reinforces my trust in the referee's judgement, not taken lightly, who will have been in possession of all the facts.
Either Thoes or IM or Tri Ireland or a confidant can share the circumstances and "the world" can take a view, based on a decent set of facts, plus the different sides' interpretation of those facts.

Last edited by: Ajax Bay: Jan 21, 23 11:46

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Irishathlete] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 10:27

Post #102 of 142 (2339 views)

Irishathlete wrote:

I've read through the thread and what's abundantly clear is nobody knows what infraction she was DQd for yet most people think it's fine she was DQd.

I'm surprised athletes are so damning without details, although maybe not so surprising given the way the world cancels people these days.

Each to their own I suppose. I'll hold any opinion until the infraction is public knowledge.

She was DQed for outside assistance. What we do know about the arbitration decision is that they agreed she had received outside assistance. But they decided it "made no difference to the race outcome". I think it's this that has caused a lot of raised eyebrows, as the rules do not include any clause for whether an infraction "makes a difference to the race outcome" and this seems to set a slightly worrying precedent.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [r0bh] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 11:50

Post #103 of 142 (2297 views)

With all the twitchhunters out there and we still don't know? The suspense is killing me...

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [r0bh] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 11:58

Post #104 of 142 (2293 views)

So we don't know the infraction. We don't know the precedent been set until we hear the details of what occured.

My point is simple, until we know why she was originally DQd we can't give an informed opinion on the right or wrongs of the decision. It's pretty straightforward, judgement must have a basis in fact, and stating "outside assistance" so case, as some have is in my opinion at best naive.

It's also curious those willing to believe the athlete guilty based on the DQ received are not willing to accept the new verdict.

Hopefully details will emerge

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Irishathlete] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 12:16

Post #105 of 142 (2282 views)

The information vacuum invites all this speculation. Why don't they just make it public exactly what form the outside assistance took?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [r0bh] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 12:22

Post #106 of 142 (2278 views)

r0bh wrote:

The information vacuum invites all this speculation. Why don't they just make it public exactly what form the outside assistance took?

So a bunch of wankers on the internet can decide what CAS already did?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Irishathlete] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 14:11

Post #107 of 142 (2212 views)

Irishathlete wrote:

So we don't know the infraction. We don't know the precedent been set until we hear the details of what occured.
My point is simple, until we know why she was originally DQd we can't give an informed opinion on the right or wrongs of the decision. It's pretty straightforward, judgement must have a basis in fact, and stating "outside assistance" so case, as some have is in my opinion at best naive.
It's also curious those willing to believe the athlete guilty based on the DQ received are not willing to accept the new verdict.
Hopefully details will emerge

With all due respect, having suggested some on here are 'naive', you seem to be slow on the uptake.
The issue is not whether she should be DQ'd: she was. But having been DQ'd the appellate body (not CAS btw) decided the appeal and recommended the DQ be rescinded on grounds which seem shaky. Fine with the decision and there is no chance of this being taken further (aka 'I accept the final verdict').
The grounds on which that decision was based has been shared. The appellate body's decision confirms that Thoes did receive outside assistance (see posts above for the rule infringed, the penalty is DQ) (thus confirming Thoes' "guilt" but recommended that the DQ be set aside because it 'did not affect the result of the race'.
The appellate body's judgement was not on "a basis in fact" it was on the basis of the most likely effect (or lack of) on the result of the race: a judgement call.
As you say "hopefully details will emerge", but it's reasonable to be keen to understand why, and ask why that hasn't happened. And also reasonable to observe that if precedent is set that penalties can be successfully appealed if their infringement "does not affect the result of the race" then there will be less deterrent to ignoring the rules.
What if Thoes had been DQ'd for littering. Do you think an appeal should be successful on the basis that it didn't affect the result of the race? Skipper had to repair a puncture in ?2019 and left the holed tube on the roadside. He was DQ'd. Did his leaving the tube there 'affect the result of the race'? The 'no littering rule is there to deter littering (see also sportives) and the 'no outside assistance' rule is there to deter that. Imagine what would happen if outside assistance was allowed in races.
HTH
https://www.tri247.com/...-ireland-2022-winner

Last edited by: Ajax Bay: Jan 22, 23 1:53

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Ajax Bay] [ In reply to ]

Jan 21, 23 21:23

Post #108 of 142 (2057 views)

Is there some kind of allowed outside assistance? When I did IM Penticton there were many sprinklers that the residents put by their lawns and we could run through the water. Anybody could run through but if the owner decides to turn the sprinkler off then it is not available to everybody.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Ajax Bay] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 1:15

Post #109 of 142 (2017 views)

From what I've read so far, this is the most likely scenario. She did something that technically qualified as outside assistance, but from s principles perspective it didn't. For example, a kid was cheering and waving a flag, he dropped the flag and started crying. She stopped, picked up the flag and have it to him. I believe that may technically classify as outside assistance, but it wasn't, and would not affect the outcome of the race. This is just one example, they could be others not likely or appropriate.

As per the dropped tube, it is not a valid example. Picking up a tube, packing it and putting it in your suit pocket takes time. They would also be an aero penalty, plus it could be competing with gels and other stuff for space.

Let's not shoot from the hip and wait until there is some more information.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Ajax Bay] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 5:02

Post #110 of 142 (1959 views)

Ajax Bay wrote:

Irishathlete wrote:

So we don't know the infraction. We don't know the precedent been set until we hear the details of what occured.
My point is simple, until we know why she was originally DQd we can't give an informed opinion on the right or wrongs of the decision. It's pretty straightforward, judgement must have a basis in fact, and stating "outside assistance" so case, as some have is in my opinion at best naive.
It's also curious those willing to believe the athlete guilty based on the DQ received are not willing to accept the new verdict.
Hopefully details will emerge

With all due respect, having suggested some on here are 'naive', you seem to be slow on the uptake.
The issue is not whether she should be DQ'd: she was. But having been DQ'd the appellate body (not CAS btw) decided the appeal and recommended the DQ be rescinded on grounds which seem shaky. Fine with the decision and there is no chance of this being taken further (aka 'I accept the final verdict').
The grounds on which that decision was based has been shared. The appellate body's decision confirms that Thoes did receive outside assistance (see posts above for the rule infringed, the penalty is DQ) (thus confirming Thoes' "guilt" but recommended that the DQ be set aside because it 'did not affect the result of the race'.
The appellate body's judgement was not on "a basis in fact" it was on the basis of the most likely effect (or lack of) on the result of the race: a judgement call.
As you say "hopefully details will emerge", but it's reasonable to be keen to understand why, and ask why that hasn't happened. And also reasonable to observe that if precedent is set that penalties can be successfully appealed if their infringement "does not affect the result of the race" then there will be less deterrent to ignoring the rules.
What if Thoes had been DQ'd for littering. Do you think an appeal should be successful on the basis that it didn't affect the result of the race? Skipper had to repair a puncture in ?2019 and left the holed tube on the roadside. He was DQ'd. Did his leaving the tube there 'affect the result of the race'? The 'no littering rule is there to deter littering (see also sportives) and the 'no outside assistance' rule is there to deter that. Imagine what would happen if outside assistance was allowed in races.
HTH
https://www.tri247.com/...-ireland-2022-winner

Hardly slow on the uptake, I'm just lacking information, as are you. Anything can be appealed , decisions can be wrong and anyone without knowledge of the infraction but complaining about it being rescinded or some issue with the precedent being set is , in my opinion naive.
It could be when we find out the details that I agree, but we don't have them . The what if situations you quote contain information, you do realise the difference?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [softrun] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 7:51

Post #111 of 142 (1880 views)

softrun wrote:

Is there some kind of allowed outside assistance? When I did IM Penticton there were many sprinklers that the residents put by their lawns and we could run through the water. Anybody could run through but if the owner decides to turn the sprinkler off then it is not available to everybody.

That's not outside assistance if everyone else has access to the sprinkler. The key is assistance that isn't offered specifically to you. If they're handing out gels to random athletes, that's fine too.

Now, if you had someone strategically positioned to give you (and only you) water, that's where it becomes an issue.

Though I get that with pros it's a bit murkier, since they're at the front of the race. What if random passerby wants to give out one gel?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [timbasile] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 15:39

Post #112 of 142 (1788 views)

timbasile wrote:

softrun wrote:

Is there some kind of allowed outside assistance? When I did IM Penticton there were many sprinklers that the residents put by their lawns and we could run through the water. Anybody could run through but if the owner decides to turn the sprinkler off then it is not available to everybody.

That's not outside assistance if everyone else has access to the sprinkler. The key is assistance that isn't offered specifically to you. If they're handing out gels to random athletes, that's fine too.
Now, if you had someone strategically positioned to give you (and only you) water, that's where it becomes an issue.
Though I get that with pros it's a bit murkier, since they're at the front of the race. What if random passerby wants to give out one gel?

2.01 (i) Compete without receiving assistance from other parties (other than from Race Referees, Race Officials, and other athletes in accordance with Section 2.02). Receiving assistance (other than in accordance with Section 2.02) will result in disqualification;
https://ironman.kleecks-cdn.com/cdn2/attachments/document/5326-2664364/2022_IRONMAN_Competition_Rules_-_English_Version_-_30march2022_-_FINAL_.pdf#_ga=2.218352282.2045724340.1648425032-260277762.1569464052

Last edited by: Ajax Bay: Jan 22, 23 15:40

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Ajax Bay] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 17:03

Post #113 of 142 (1747 views)

Ajax Bay wrote:

Here's a 'first hand account' by @Dan the Man of Thoes' bike riding skillz, from the 'I'm outraged at people accusing other people of malicious actions' thread started by Sheridan.

Dan The Man wrote:

Svenja Thoes did draft at Ironman Ireland.

I raced the age group race which started 10 minutes behind the pro field and during the bike section I caught and passed most of the female pro athletes. About 60 miles in to the bike I caught and passed Thoes and thought nothing of it until I noticed her shadow (it was super sunny!) riding very close to me, this continued for a few minutes and I shouted and gesticulated at her to get out of the draft zone. I was incensed that she was using an age grouper to gain advantage and steal prize money from the rest of the fair racing womens field. She took no notice and proceeded to stay in the draft zone for the next 25 miles approximately. It was obvious every time I looked behind and most of the time I could see her shadow. I was 2nd overall age grouper on the road, there was no one else around and there was no athlete congestion or anything that might have been deemed an excuse to mistakenly enter the draft zone, it was deliberate cheating for a significant amount of time. At about 85 miles into the bike the 3rd age grouper caught and passed me, we know each other so we exchanged a few words of encouragement and I used this opportunity to again shout at Thoes and tell the other age grouper that she was cheating. After this she decided to respect the rules, overtook me and pulled away for the final section of the ride entering T2 approximately a minute ahead.

As far as evidence is concerned I'm sure you could compare time splits on the bike, see that I took 10 mins out of her in the first 60 ish miles and then magically she was able to ride at my pace after I caught her. I'm sure there must be photographic evidence of this as well from on course as it went on for a long time. I finished 2nd age grouper overall and 1st 40-44, I don't care if I'm not anonymous, I'd rather the correct female pros receive their hard earned prize money and rule breaking should be punished. I don't know anything about the infringement which led to her DQ for outside assistance I didn't see anything of that nature either on the bike or run.

As an aside I'd suggest a female pro race should have 30 mins head start on male age groupers so that both races aren't interfering with each other. That's a minor point though in the context of the race, I would just like to add that no country could match Ireland for putting on an Ironman, I've raced 16 IMs all over the world and Youghal on Sunday delivered a race and an experience hands down better than anywhere else. If you get the chance, you should race Ironman Ireland, chapeau Youghal.

The following is pure speculation, but based on the reason that I don't see why the quoted poster would lie:

I wonder if this is an "Al Capone" kind of charge. That is, it's possible there were a lot of reports of her drafting (see above) but without visuals (he said it was "deserted"), so they wanted to get her for something, but could only do so on the "outside help" charge because that's what they had visual proof of. (For the uninitiated, Capone was a Chicago mobster who they couldn't tie directly to the murders, etc. that he did, but they were able to put him in jail for income tax evasion.)

If that is the case it is very unfortunate that the charges did not stick.

Tri or tri not; this is no du. (--- with apologies to Yoda.) Slow triathlete who survived Huntsville, Lelystadt, Colmar, Fontanil, and
Szekesfehervar/Lake Velence. Arbor hydration specialist in a kid's park in Monterrey 4 times in the 1990s (and in the pits in 1994).

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [monty] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 17:24

Post #114 of 142 (1726 views)

You are one of the most experienced posters on this site, so I have to ask you. *Most* officials "officiate" with pretty good discretion, so I'd have to imagine that some type of "outside" assistance was truly outside assistance. And I dont mean she's running and some random fan just gives her an piece of chocolate / dumps water on her. Like for the most part officials show decently good thoughts into rules.

But I do want to know what it was since it nearly resulted in this being some big travesty that ole Sutto was talking about.

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

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [adnama] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 17:41

Post #115 of 142 (1716 views)

They un disqualified her didn’t they?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]

Jan 22, 23 20:05

Post #116 of 142 (1627 views)

*Most* officials "officiate" with pretty good discretion, so I'd have to imagine that some type of "outside" assistance was truly outside assistance.//

I would mostly agree with this statement of yours, but it only takes one bad call. And I would say there are several bad calls out of every couple dozen or so, I have been on the wrong end of probably 3 or 4 in my career, and witnessed dozens others. Officials are just people, with all their biases, flaws, and quirks. I have seen some that are basically blind to the intent of a rule, and the rule is everything to them with no interpretation. The kind that would ding a rider for getting pushed up a hill by a fan, or taking a gel from someone near an aid station. Most officials if they are in it long enough, evolve to a more forgiving stance when it comes to gray area calls, but of course there are many that are green and just dont understand that element of officiating. Charlie Crawford who ran the USAT official program for years and years, is a great example of this. Started out throwing the book at everyone for the most minor of offenses, but later in his career really became a great official, and learned that there is always two sides to a story.

So this could be one of those types of calls, we really dont know. But it was overturned, we know that, so it was not so cut and dried as the original call led us to believe. I'm with Irish here, until we know the full detail of the original call, and then the overturning reasons, we are left to wonder and postulate. I would not take a hard position either way right now, just not enough info considering two opposing views from the original call, to the undoing of it by a court of arbitration.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [monty] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 4:57

Post #117 of 142 (1507 views)

monty wrote:

Brooks said: *Most* officials "officiate" with pretty good discretion, so I'd have to imagine that some type of "outside" assistance was truly outside assistance.//

I would mostly agree with this statement of yours, but it only takes one bad call. And I would say there are several bad calls out of every couple dozen or so, I have been on the wrong end of probably 3 or 4 in my career, and witnessed dozens others. Officials are just people, with all their biases, flaws, and quirks. I have seen some that are basically blind to the intent of a rule, and the rule is everything to them with no interpretation. . . . there is always two sides to a story.

However most of those 'bad calls' are judgement calls on the field of play. In this case the Head Referee had to consider the evidence available to them, after the prizegiving podium. There would have been a 'process disincentive' against DQ; but after careful consideration that was the decision: outside assistance = DQ. I think the 'Al Capone' analogy is actually quite likely either the main motivation or an ancillary consideration (what can we get to stick/). The appellate body (Tri Ireland) agreed that 'outside assistance' had occurred (see report shared here and elsewhere) so the Head Referee's decision was entirely rational - and the penalty is clear too: DQ. The appeal against DQ succeeded because the appellate body recommended that the DQ be rescinded because the outside assistance 'did not affect the result of the race'.
There is no reference in the rules to any such consideration/mitigation. This, not the reappearance in the results of Thoes, is the key issue here. And it almost doesn't matter the exact circumstances of the outside assistance on that road in Cork. Though knowledge of the facts would help referees in future events come to decisions which are less likely to be overturned on appeal.
As a complete aside, I think Tri Ireland have risked jeopardising the future staging of IM Ireland by their recommendation. That risk can be mitigated by laying out clearly the facts leading to DQ and the grounds/rationale for the recommendation.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [monty] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 5:29

Post #118 of 142 (1487 views)

I look forward to the explanation and I hope/assume it would be public. So wondering when we’ll find out.

Add in Sutto’s commentary on the event before it was overturned makes it even more on the edge of your seat drama (pink / not pink / half pink).

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

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [madMike100] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 5:54

Post #119 of 142 (1469 views)

madMike100 wrote:

I wonder if this is an "Al Capone" kind of charge.

This is my thinking.

They believe she drafted based on first hand accounts, timing mats and pictures (we have seen all of the above).

But they didn't have a draft marshal there. So they get her on a technicality like outside assistance.

If so, is the drafting "evidence" even considered by CAS.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [marcag] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 6:56

Post #120 of 142 (1435 views)

Wasn’t there someone a few years ago that got DQ’D for getting lip balm. I think something like that would be outside assistance that wouldn’t give anyone an advantage. Perhaps she needed certain medication that was due. If let’s say she is diabetic, and her insulin pump isn’t functioning, would it be a DQ if someone gave her insulin?

Just speculation of course, but i am sure there is a rational reason the arbiter ruled this.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [AchillesHeal] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 7:01

Post #121 of 142 (1433 views)

AchillesHeal wrote:

Wasn’t there someone a few years ago that got DQ’D for getting lip balm. I think something like that would be outside assistance that wouldn’t give anyone an advantage. Perhaps she needed certain medication that was due. If let’s say she is diabetic, and her insulin pump isn’t functioning, would it be a DQ if someone gave her insulin?

Just speculation of course, but i am sure there is a rational reason the arbiter ruled this.

Even as a diabetic....speaking from experience....when something goes wrong you turn to race officials for assistance.
Someone sitting on the sideline with medication would definitely be outside assistance.
I have my stuff in a pouch and a spare in special needs.

IMAZ, my glucose meter stopped working. I stopped at the various medical tents along the way. I tallied up 22minutes of wasted time, but it is what it is. Kind of like a flat.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [Ajax Bay] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 7:17

Post #122 of 142 (1415 views)

Ajax Bay wrote:

monty wrote:

Brooks said: *Most* officials "officiate" with pretty good discretion, so I'd have to imagine that some type of "outside" assistance was truly outside assistance.//

I would mostly agree with this statement of yours, but it only takes one bad call. And I would say there are several bad calls out of every couple dozen or so, I have been on the wrong end of probably 3 or 4 in my career, and witnessed dozens others. Officials are just people, with all their biases, flaws, and quirks. I have seen some that are basically blind to the intent of a rule, and the rule is everything to them with no interpretation. . . . there is always two sides to a story.

However most of those 'bad calls' are judgement calls on the field of play. In this case the Head Referee had to consider the evidence available to them, after the prizegiving podium. There would have been a 'process disincentive' against DQ; but after careful consideration that was the decision: outside assistance = DQ. I think the 'Al Capone' analogy is actually quite likely either the main motivation or an ancillary consideration (what can we get to stick/). The appellate body (Tri Ireland) agreed that 'outside assistance' had occurred (see report shared here and elsewhere) so the Head Referee's decision was entirely rational - and the penalty is clear too: DQ. The appeal against DQ succeeded because the appellate body recommended that the DQ be rescinded because the outside assistance 'did not affect the result of the race'.
There is no reference in the rules to any such consideration/mitigation. This, not the reappearance in the results of Thoes, is the key issue here. And it almost doesn't matter the exact circumstances of the outside assistance on that road in Cork. Though knowledge of the facts would help referees in future events come to decisions which are less likely to be overturned on appeal.
As a complete aside, I think Tri Ireland have risked jeopardising the future staging of IM Ireland by their recommendation. That risk can be mitigated by laying out clearly the facts leading to DQ and the grounds/rationale for the recommendation.

triathlon ireland had upheld the dq in stage 2 we do seem to read, and it was the next instance that reversed the dq which is an indepedend body that has nothing to do with the irish tri federation.
SDSI has nothing to to with triathlon ireland if you care to read that up.

if you read the document further you will also see that this was not a public hearing and there is confidentiality, so i doubt you will ever really hear what happened. i do not agree with that as i think this should be made public but i guess its unlikely it will be. and certainly not from the arbitrator.
iam not entirely sure if it was possible to go to CAS but since they are going to pay thoes that means case is closed.

Last edited by: pk: Jan 23, 23 7:22

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [pk] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 7:42

Post #123 of 142 (1376 views)

pk wrote:

Ajax Bay wrote:

As a complete aside, I think Tri Ireland have risked jeopardising the future staging of IM Ireland by their recommendation. That risk can be mitigated by laying out clearly the facts leading to DQ and the grounds/rationale for the recommendation.

triathlon ireland had upheld the dq in stage 2 we do seem to read, and it was the next instance that reversed the dq which is an independent body that has nothing to do with the irish tri federation. SDSI has nothing to to with triathlon ireland if you care to read that up.
if you read the document further you will also see that this was not a public hearing and there is confidentiality, so i doubt you will ever really hear what happened. i do not agree with that as i think this should be made public but i guess its unlikely it will be. and certainly not from the arbitrator.
i am not entirely sure if it was possible to go to CAS but since they are going to pay thoes that means case is closed.

Thank you. Not aware. Hopefully IM Ireland lives on. Can go to CAS; but won't. SDSI:
http://sportdisputesolutions.ie/...SI-FAQ-July-2021.pdf
Do other countries have similar set ups to offer mediation/arbitration for sports related disputes/appeals?

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [marcag] [ In reply to ]

Jan 23, 23 10:26

Post #124 of 142 (1296 views)

marcag wrote:

madMike100 wrote:

I wonder if this is an "Al Capone" kind of charge.

This is my thinking.

They believe she drafted based on first hand accounts, timing mats and pictures (we have seen all of the above).

But they didn't have a draft marshal there. So they get her on a technicality like outside assistance.

If so, is the drafting "evidence" even considered by CAS.

The "Al Capone" idea strikes me as a stretch. I can't imagine the refs thinking "we have to get her for something" and then turning to some minor case of outside assistance on the hope it sticks. If you're DQing the overall winner of a full-distance IM, I imagine that you have to be very convinced that the violation warrants it.

In an earlier thread, I suggested ST interview her to get her side of the story. I was directed to Instagram and told the details were there. I'm not on Instagram and was too lazy to go exploring. But has she or anyone else given the smallest amount of detail about what assistance she allegedly received, from whom, and where? Did it occur on the bike or on the run, early, late, etc.? All I've detected from this thread is that she denied it.

It seems the only information we have is that she was originally DQ'd for receiving assistance and that the DQ was overturned. Are there any other facts of this case that are public? It's actually kind of surprising how little we know about a potentially important decision in terms of the precedents it might set.

Re: Ironman Ireland FPRO Winner DQd? [ In reply to ]

Feb 3, 23 6:56

Post #125 of 142 (1006 views)

The decision to overturn the DQ has been out for over two weeks now. Yet now information about the basis for the initial DQ nor the basis to reinstate the win. It's also over 6 months from the race itself where the DQ occurred.

Curiosity is getting the best of me. Im surprised Thoes herself isnt speaking to this. Nor have any of the other pros who moved up the podium from the DQ then back down after the arbitration decision. Id also assume that locals to the race must have heard or seen what happened so its odd that no chatter has made it out to social media or elsewhere in the media. And also odd that the decision itself isnt publicly available. And strange that theres no comment from Ironman in particular if a clarification of rules is needed.

It all just seems a very odd set of circumstances. Tri media including Slowtwitch staff should reach out to those involved for comment.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.