I just need to know when to put my pitchfork down, my arms are getting tired.

I get the Hawaiian anti-tourism mentality. They have this beautiful place that gets treated with respect, disrespect, and everything in between by tourists. I understand some feel like they’re being invaded in the figurative sense.

Flip side is that tourism accounts for about a quarter of their economy, and much higher in certain areas. That’s not immaterial. Look what no tourism did during the height of the pandemic. The economy got crushed but there were also cheers of “Hey, we got our islands back.” It’s quite obvious that Hawaii is way too dependent on tourism. It’s easy money so not sure how they balance it.

---

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

I find this argument about tourists "invading" "their" islands to be pretty rich. If the person complaining is a native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander then they have every right to be upset, and probably about more than just tourists.

The dude from Iowa who moved to Hawaii 10 years ago because he didn't like the crappy winters in the midwest and is now pissy because the line for his Starbucks order is longer one week out of the year when IM comes to town I have no use for.

That being said, I think your point about triathletes sharing some of the blame is definitely valid as I'm sure more than a few have not been good guests during their time in Kona.

How about letting the people in Kona/Hawaii decide themselves? Oh, we didn't like what they chose.

My take on the Messick interview was that 2 days of racing in Kona was a deal breaker for the local community even if it was Saturday / Sunday of the same weekend, even if it was months apart.

So, IM had to choose. Women get their own day to race and there has to be two venues or it goes back to the way it was, one day of racing everyone together...

They chose to continue giving women their own race..


Was the financial side of it a factor. Of course it was....their goal is to make money.

My comment has nothing to do with what Ironman does or doesn't do. It's the macro level issue that Hawaii has with tourism in general.

---

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

we tend to eat our own. this is another of life's mysteries. the mayor was right. it was not set in stone. that's because no agreement makes sense if the people who live there - and who make up the largest cohort of volunteers - don't want the event (or, the 2nd event). that's the ONLY reason it wasn't set in stone. those who insist that IM started taking reservations before they had an agreed-upon deal are almost certainly wrong in that view.

i want ironman to succeed. to prosper. i want it to make money. if possible, i want it to make more money. more sponsors. more licensees. more athletes. more registrations. as long as its customers and stakeholders are treated well i don't see why it's a bad thing. for many people ironman is the brand that means the most to them in their everyday lives; and is also the brand they root against, assume the worst of, and hope will fail.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I just want to point out that if Ironman only cared about money you could argue that they could have kept two days without an equal split men/women (like it was at Kona this year). That may sound easier/safer since there are more men competing in triathlon worldwide (I believe the split globally is around 70/30?).

But they chose to have full day men and full day women. So they care about money but they care about other things. That's a good thing. Kudos to them and I think it's great that they are pushing the equal split. The Olympic games are going for equal split (although still not fully there). I don't see why IM WC shouldn't.

I don't quite follow you here. If the agreement was not set in stone, then wasn't IM taking reservations before it had a deal? Maybe it had a handshake-type deal, rather than something formal-- is that what you mean? In any case, I still don't quite buy the implication that IM was put in a difficult position as opposed to IM putting itself in a difficult position. IM had to know there were a lot of rumblings from the local community and that a pulled plug was a real possibility. In that situation (and without a binding agreement), an organization more attentive to its customers would have acted differently. At least that's the way I see it.


I can't speak for others, but as someone who is critical of IM I would not say "I want IM to fail" and I don't think of myself as eating my own. What I want is for IM to do better, particularly in terms of customer service and communication. There are different reasons the Kona decision has generated such an outcry, but one of them is that the sloppy manner in which it was handled feels pretty familiar to those who think IM could do better by its customers.

If IM's goal is to monopolize long-distance racing, then, yes, I want it to fail. I'd like to see healthy competition and lots of options between IM, PTO, Clash, local, etc.

the likeliest scenario - very likely, highly effing likely, very extremely likely - is that IM had a deal and then the island changed its mind, and IM was okay with the island changing its mind because: 1) what would the alternative be? and 2) there were facts in evidence after the race that were not in evidence before the race, namely, how the locals would feel about a 2-day event next year after having experienced it this year.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

he likeliest scenario - very likely, highly effing likely, very extremely likely - is that IM had a deal and then the island changed its mind, and IM was okay with the island changing its mind because: 1) what would the alternative be? and 2) there were facts in evidence after the race that were not in evidence before the race, namely, how the locals would feel about a 2-day event next year after having experienced it this year.
_________


agree with this.


where they lose me is not offering refunds to the men who qualified for Kona and are now told to either go to a 'TBD location in 2023 or defer to 2024".

I can see them getting sued. Lots of triathlete lawyers! and $1600USD race fee + losses on booked flights etc. Even for us Canadians if we get a refund from a pre-paid accommodation we lose on the exchange quite a bit. Flights may only give back credit etc.


and maybe just maybe, the idea of "not looking back" from a 2-day race format is a mistake. Maybe 1200 men and 1200 women is a world championship that fills the pier for 1 day racing. Yes guys, that means us giving up some slots.

my last thought is if the 2nd days racing could be pros only would that have worked for locals? 2 out and backs along Alli to old aiport and back would do. highway would be open by noon. yes, lose energy lab mystique but....puts and takes.

---

@rhyspencer

I don't disagree with you, but could you explain why what you describe is the likeliest scenario.

What does it mean to say "IM had a deal"? Was it a verbal agreement akin to a handshake or something more formal/ legal/ binding? I have no idea how the process of organizing a race unfolds.

And what exactly was the timing? When was the deal agreed upon and when was it reneged? HOw long has IM been aware that Kona was endangered or not happening? How many people signed up for Kona during that time?

IM sold 38 male slots 1.5 weeks ago in AZ. Don’t you think they knew this was dead then?

I suspect they were aware of the unlikelihood of a male Oct 14 race a week after this year’s Kona, and nevertheless sold hundreds of slots thereafter. They could have easily said “We know where you finished. When we have a firm plan for a WC, we will conduct a virtual roll down.”

Moreover, they never should have promised a two day Kona in the Summer without a binding commitment from the town.

I’m lucky that I was too lazy to book a flight or accommodation before now. I can live without a Kona race in 2023–I have mixed feelings about the venue and have done it a few times. For me, this isn’t about the money or the obsession with that venue.

What really offends me is a company misleading its customers and then having the conceit that they can get away with it. This management team somehow survives screwing up in this way, over and over again.

The closest comparison is an airline. We can hate the vendor, but have to eat the s___ because they are the only game in town. IM executives know that and behave accordingly.

The other choice in the equation is that they made the choice to keep half of the WC in Kona. So the third option was just packing up ship and moving the WC to Nice, or to St. George, or to somewhere else that wants to host a 2 day WC. (and presumably then rotating it around)

I still think splitting up the venues was an awkward choice that will eventually be remedied by having a rotating venue made up of locations willing to host a 2 day event. How long it will take for Ironman to get there is another matter - but to me, this looks like a test run for eventually moving the WC out of Kona entirely (save for the odd repeat visit on historic markers if the locals are willing).

This is in the same vein as when the 70.3 was moved to Mont Tremblant - baby steps. Messick said that prior to Tremblant, he couldn't imagine moving the 70.3 WC out of the continental US. Tremblant, being just 2hrs north of the border, was a good stepping stone to proving out the idea that a WC outside its current framework was feasible.

While yes, I think the community back stepped after its experience this October I don't think there was anything set in stone yet based on Messick's quote:

"Our expectation was that we were going to be able to have two days of racing in 2023. We’d worked closely with the mayor and the county and the community when we announced two days of racing in 2023 in July."

The key work in the quote above is expectation. The usage of that word leads me to believe that Ironman was assuming that the community was going to approve the two day format for 2023. That there was an informal or verbal agreement in place maybe. Hawaii Mayor Mitch Roth was quoted on October 5th as saying the 2023 two-day format was not set in stone, but Ironman was still, at that time, planning and moving forward as if the two-day format would happen in 2023. After hearing that from Roth, Ironman should have pumped the breaks for all 2023 World Championship slots. From those two quotes I take that there was no formal agreement yet between the county and the Ironman Corporation for 2023. I am only speculating that because we do not know for certain what talks were had and what agreements were made. Even though that should be public record and should be able to be found online if in fact there was an agreement for 2023.

This is were I still have the blame on Ironman. While yes, the two day format and subsequent split of the female and male professional races was truly a welcome addition. That was only one of the factors that Ironman split the race into two days. 1) Ironman wanted a two day event so that females and males to have their own day of racing to give each their own spot light, and 2) Ironman wanting a two day event so that they can have more racers and collect more income.

Second quote from Messick is:

"...we were left with being in a position where we’ve made two promises: a promise for men and women each to have their own day of racing, and the promise of everybody being in Kona in 2023. And we couldn’t keep both promises."

Ok, so Ironman chose two day of racing over everyone racing Kona. Their justification for reason number one above.

"All right, which one of those is more important? And our conclusion is that it’s more important that there’s two days of racing. It’s more important that women get an opportunity to have their own race with the pure spotlight and attention, when the global triathlon and other endemic media is focused on them on their day, and then on the men on their day."

But he then drops this bomb.

"And that there’s more opportunities for age-group men and age-group women to be able to qualify for a world championship."

Messick straight up admits it in my opinion, and yes it is just an opinion of a single person, that they are going to a split location two day format versus a return to the single day, everyone in Hawaii format to allow more people to pay to participate in their event.

So that is my take on it. Until, there are more records available that there was a formal agreement in place that the County backed out of I still put the bulk of the blame on Ironman.

This is a thoughtful, well-supported assessment of the situation.

If logistic was not an issue, IM could easily sell +10K spot for Kona every year. The locals have decided that we could only get 2.5k... There are few ways to allocate a limited resource (lottery, auction, merit, etc.). Clearly IM has chosen what will maximize their profit. Which will create a bunch of unhappy internet people.

I think the messaging around the change could have been better, but i'm pretty sure that if i was the CEO of IM i will probably done something similar.

My take on the Messick interview was that 2 days of racing in Kona was a deal breaker for the local community even if it was Saturday / Sunday of the same weekend, even if it was months apart.


I sense that was it.

Look - I was there the last few years in the run up to 2019, and I can tell you that the place had the feel of being at-the-limit or perhaps a bit over it - that was the one day race with 2000 - 2500 entries. I know personally key people on the Opps team - some of the absolute BEST Operations & Logistics people in the Endurance Sports Race/Event Business, and they planned extremely well for the 2-day affair this year. Got all the buy-in and the sign-offs they needed, but it still had an impact that I don't think anyone foresaw - despite the absolute best of planning and execution.

Here's another view - I am sure there are other things that IM would like to do with the Event - but the location and a bunch of other factors prevent them from doing these. After all this is their showcase event. While there is a great deal of history in Kona, perhaps there is an argument that the location is holding the whole of the enterprise back!

There are people (many) who are NOT happy about this - the outpouring of negativity on social media is significant! But there are some positives with this, and perhaps a natural evolution of sorts!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

"IM had a deal." i don't know how it is you want me to say it other than that. assurance. word. agreement. what changed is the level of complaint from the residents. this undid the deal. neither the city nor IM would have wanted to buck that going forward, so IM has provided this workaround.

the only thing of issue is that IM did not start taking registrations for 2023 until it and the city were walking in lock step toward a 2023 kona that was a reprise of the 2022 kona. this of course was the posture of both host and race producer prior to the 2022 race. i know plenty of race orgs that start taking your money way before they get the OK from the host that the race is on, but IM does not typically work that way and did not do that in this case. (this is the IM that has never paid me a dime, for anything, over 35 years of doing business with them, just so you know, before i get accused of being in the tank for IM.)

there's plenty for me to criticize about IM. there's plenty of areas where i don't see eye to eye with that brand. but this is not one of them. how they treat the men who did enter for 2023 assuming they'd be on their way to kona, that's another issue, we'll wait and see how that works out.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Yep...95% of the people on slowtwitch don't have a slot but you know this is the topic they are all reading and discussing. :-)

A college basketball coach makes a verbal offer to a five-star recruit. The kid sends a text accepting the offer. A week later the kid holds a press conference announcing his decision. A couple months later, on national signing day, the kid signs his letter of intent, a legally binding document. If he changes his mind after signing day, he may have to sit out a year should the school not release him.

At any one of those three stages the coach could honestly say “we have a deal”, but those deals are not the same level of commitment for the recruit.

That’s what I was getting at with my question. Was IM’s “deal” for a two-day Kona closer to a verbal commitment or more towards the letter of intent end of the spectrum?

If the former, IM knew there was a great deal of uncertainty and that it was quite possible the community would pressure local authorities. It should have handled it differently. If the latter, then I’m more sympathetic with its plight.

Dan yes this is absolutely correct. Lets assume a deal was in place. Every deal can be nixed or a new contract can null the previous one. Furthermore lets say the deal was done and IM didnt want to play nice and force the 2 day format there... well that would not end well for anyone. It would be a logistical nightmare for IM to even try to get that done without the true help and collaboration of Kona. In addition it would have been the true death of IM in Kona. Kona would have gone with a Hard NO to 2024 and beyond. Then what? Kona is completely dead rather than some remnant of it.

So yes IM made a decision the best they could with all the factors and yep it made people mad. Never can please anyone... Smhhh

I like this metaphor. Based on quotes from both Andrew Messick and Mitch Roth it definitely sounded like the 2023 event was between the periods of a decision being announced at a press conference and signing an official letter of intent. If there was in fact a signed permit from the County of Hawaii that would be public record and anyone could request to see that information. Though you would need to wade through the bureaucratic nightmare of the Hawaii government in order to obtain the information.