"I don't care how big a group of cyclists around you is, it's always possible not to be in the wrong place."

As best as I can tell, that statement is factually incorrect. If, as I start to pass rider X, I myself get passed by rider Y, the rules oblige me to do two things simultaneously: (1) complete my pass of X on time and (2) drop back from Y's zone "immediately" (whatever "immediately" means). It may sometimes be mathematically impossible to do both, especially if Y slows to a crawl after passing me. In an extreme case, Y could stop entirely, which would require me to go backward (and quickly, and without crossing the center line or breaking other traffic rules); in that case, it's obviously not possible for me to complete my own pass of X.

I would certainly hope that in practice the rules will be applied with some common sense, but nevertheless the statement seems to me to be incorrect.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Yes sure,

Everything is gonna be allright from now on. Yeez....

And the lame excuses for the Florida disaster really make me feel all warm and fuzzy about what is going to come. I already know the next excuse you gonna hear from drafters: I did not know that THIS specific set of rules was in effect at this specific race.



I think it is all a big cover up to make Ironman racing draft legal. I know that the WTC is closely watching (maybe eying) ITU and the Worldcup circuit.

I admit, I don't like the WTC or GTG for the matter that there is a lot of financial interest involved in what drives desicions there. Can't be good for the interest of the common age-grouper (WTC not wanting to talk with USAT and vice versa confirms that for me).

I don't want to race to some set of arbitrary rules some commercial entity has come up with.

Call me a Troll, I don't give rat's ...

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

I do believe you're on to something....

Thanks for the referral. Good read. I just finished it.

I'm not exactly sure of the precise wording of the rules but in the case you bring up you have 15 sec to get your front wheel slightly in front of the guy you are passing. If a guy gets his front wheel in front of yours at the same time you must drop back behind him. That would oblige the guy you passed to keep behind you. Rider Y is not allowed to stop in the road. I think where we differ is our interpretation of completing the pass. As I understand you have to get you front edge in front of the passees front edge. You do not have to get your entire bike in front of their entire bike.



Styrrell

"I'm not exactly sure of the precise wording of the rules but in the case you bring up you have 15 sec [actually it's 20 seconds under GTG rules] to get your front wheel slightly in front of the guy you are passing. If a guy gets his front wheel in front of yours at the same time you must drop back behind him. That would oblige the guy you passed to keep behind you. Rider Y is not allowed to stop in the road. I think where we differ is our interpretation of completing the pass. As I understand you have to get you front edge in front of the passees front edge. You do not have to get your entire bike in front of their entire bike."

I don't think you understood my post correctly. I agree with you that my pass would be completed as soon as the front of my tire was beyond the front of X's tire. That's not the issue.

In the scenario I described, as I approach X to make the pass, Y passes both me (and possibly X as well) and then slows down drastically or even stops. Although you say that "Rider Y is not allowed to stop in the road," there is to my knowledge no minimum speed limit in triathlon or any rule against stopping entirely, provided of course that one is not in the process of passing. Even while Y slows down in front of me, I am supposed to back out of Y's draft zone, even though I'm also supposed to complete my pass of X within 15 seconds (or 20 seconds if it's a GTG race). It may often be mathematically impossible to comply with both requirements simultaneously.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

WTC has copied the Tri-Fed/USAT draft-control system that Chris Hunter, Charlie Crawford and I have worked on for 22 years. It's a very inefficient method, I don't care who's running it. But, we were under the constraints of very few resources and almost no support.

WTC should have few problems with resources and support. But they do have media/marketing constraints. For example, initially, the pro wave start in Kona was installed because the faster AGs were getting into the pro field and creating problems with TV coverage. It also allowed the pro field to be easier to cover on the bike. Additionally, one of the more experienced marshals was assigned to the lead woman with express instructions to "keep the male AGs away from her". The faster male AGs were converging on the lead woman in order to get on TV and were interfering with cameraman. The media/marketing constraints also mean that we will always have mass AG swim starts. Hey, I paid good money for the poster, and it is proudly displayed.

So, WTC and USAT have different circumstances and different needs. I don't see them as compatible. The two groups serve different masters. But, I can't imagine the sport without both

I hope WTC develops its own course control system. They have the opportunity to bring their professional business approach to bear on the problem, and I'm sure they will. It's my opinion that they have temporarily borrowed the USAT model until they have time to refine their own. At least, I hope so.

---

Jim

Ok. I understand all.

What are some ideas you have for better methods/techniques/systems for course management? Lets assume you have most, if not all the resources you need (since you note that WTC has significant resources to bear on the problem).

This is definitiely a work in progress. As I read the ST suggestions, ideas change. I am working on a paper titled "Corridor Control" which steps back and looks at the factors which influence course density. But, I keep reading the Forum and am constantly modifying stuff.

For a start, use USAT referees as course marshals. They are the best in the world at penalty enforcement. Able to judge intent, absent from intimidation. USAT has to realize that WTC is operating under different demands, and is not the enemy. We(triathletes) are quite capable of understanding the difference between the two. USAT referees would bring WTC years ahead of the game compared to training their own group.

If mass swim starts are dictated by media, how about a rear wave group of slower swimmers(voluntary) with the time separation either added to the total time, or a 6:45 start? This alleviates congestion in the swim and gives a steadier entry to the bike course and doesn't interfere with the TV start.

If the current start is maintained, then there must be "choke" points on the bike course in order to not overwhelm enforcement. These can be at the start or along the course. Keep in mind that triathletes are "chase" oriented. On a long course, many packs are formed as riders progress through the field until they find others of their ability. I call it a "natural pack". No one can get away, and no one will back off. No one feels they are guilty. The marshal must stay with the group or they will re-form in a heartbeat. "Choke" points won't effect this type.

Marshals should operate in "packs" of three. A single marshal cannot stop a pack. The pack just throws off a sacrificial lamb, and re-forms. I should say a minimum of three marshals.

These are just a few of my favorite things. Other than the USAT referees, none of the changes are budgetary.

Sorry to be brief, but I have to go to work

---

Jim

Hello, Your point is taken, but two things. Passing someone partially then stopping would be aginst the blocking rules (I suspect). Even if its not its not going to happen (either the occurrance or getting a penalty for not slamming on the brakes to avoid repassing a stopped rider). So intaking the case of a rider passing you as your passing another then slowing down, i still don't see an impossiblity.

Quote:" In the scenario I described, as I approach X to make the pass, Y passes both me (and possibly X as well) and then slows down drastically or even stops.

Even while Y slows down in front of me, I am supposed to back out of Y's draft zone, even though I'm also supposed to complete my pass of X within 15 seconds (or 20 seconds if it's a GTG race). It may often be mathematically impossible to comply with both requirements simultaneously. "

In the above you have to pass X, or drop back. So if you have your front wheel in front of his when y passes you he has to drop back with you. If Y passes you and you haven't passed x yet you have to drop back and x may or may not depending on the relative positions of X and Y. Whether Y slows or not after passing you doesn't change what you have to do.



Styrrell

"Passing someone partially then stopping would be aginst the blocking rules (I suspect)."

I didn't say that Y "passed me partially." Rather, in my scenario, Y completed the pass, at which point I was in his draft zone and legally obliged to drop back.

"In the above you have to pass X, or drop back. So if you have your front wheel in front of his when y passes you he has to drop back with you. If Y passes you and you haven't passed x yet you have to drop back and x may or may not depending on the relative positions of X and Y."

In my scenario, I was passing X. By definition, that means that the front of my wheel had not yet passed the front of his--because if it had, I would technically no longer be passing X, but would already have completed my pass. So at this point my pass is incomplete. But according to the rules, all attempted passes must be completed; I cannot simply change my mind after initiating the process. Since I already began the process of passing X (i. e., moving into his draft zone), the rules do not allow me to drop back, but instead require that I complete the pass within 15 (or 20 for GTG) seconds. But since I get passed by Y during that same time period, I also have to drop back from Y's draft zone. Obviously, it's mathematically impossible to do both: I can't accelerate (to complete my pass of X) and decelerate (to drop out of Y's draft zone) at the same time.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Hello,

I'll buy you arguement, but two things.

1) In the case you describe I don't thing that anyone would ever be given a penalty, but I would like the rules to be possible to follow, descretion or not. The main problem is that no provision is made for an attempted, but failed pass. Its always been interpreted as 15 seconds to complete or drop back, but the "or drop back" isn't actually in the rules.

2) You are describing a rare occurance where a double pass happens and all three rider are going alsmost the same speed ( at 15, 20, and 25 mph the passes would happen fast enough that no problems occur) and none of the rider being passed mounts a serious challenge.



Styrrell

"But they do have media/marketing constraints."

I think this is exactly the point. I as an age-grouper don't care about media/marketing. I care about a fair and safe race. If WTC wants to put on a show for the TV it should not do that on the back of common age-groupers, who already pay big bucks to enter the race.

I then suggest to establish a race series for Pro's only (like the Worldcup), where they can duke it out under any rules and marketing constraints they want to impose on Pro's who get paid to race under any rules and regulations.

Anyway, I think a solution developed with a lot of resources is not necessarily better than one that has been created on a shoestring budget.

There are also other limiters in developing a set of rules that will work (e.g. # of competitors, course-layout etc.) that cannot simply be fixed by throwing new rules or more money at it.



I for my part have had enough and will no longer pay up for WTC races that are potentially unsafe because of "political" isssues and media/marketing constraints.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

It sounds like we both agree that the rules need some clarification to deal with such cases. Right now, "drop back" is technically not a legal option once one has initiated a pass, but perhaps it needs to be legal in certain circumstances (e. g., when there is no legal alternative course of action).

If you think such occurrences are rare, you obviously haven't raced on a course as crowded as IMFL, where you very frequently see rider A passing rider B at the same time that B is starting to pass rider C. Actually, an even more common situation is that A is trying to pass a series of riders B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5. By the time A passes B1, he is already in B2's draft zone and has to complete his pass of B2, etc.--so he must pass all five riders in one longer acceleration. By the time he has passed this long train, it is VERY likely than a rider C will have come up and passed him on HIS left. Note that this situation arises even if riders B1 through B5 are moving considerably slower.

Fortunately, I'm so slow coming out of the water that I don't run into the packs much until the latter part of the bike leg, but it does become a problem then.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Hello, I absolutely agree that the rules need changing. For one I would like to see waves in big races.

styrrell

---

Styrrell

They have waves in Roth. When I raced it in 2001 I didn't start until 45 minutes or so after the pros and all of the women went off. There was still a lot of drafting going on even though the waves spread things out. One thing that may ease the problem would be to have all lanes of the road available for the first 10-20 km so that even though there are a lot of people coming out together they can spread out across the road and/or pass easily without the congestion we see now. I raced IMFL in 2003 and came out of the water in 1:01. I spent most of the first 20km riding by myself with riders spread out every 40-50m. There was a fairly strong headwind in 2003 and by the time I was 35km in I was getting caught by groups of 8-10 cyclists. These are the competitors that are making the choice to cheat. When one of these groups caught me I'd sit up and give them some space so that I wasn't caught up in the cheating pack. I did my entire ride without cheating myself out of what I consider the ironman to be about. When someone passes you, it is your choise to ride legal or jump on the train which is what I think the point of the comment Riccitello made in the interview. Obviously, for people coming out in the 1:10-1:25 range it is more crowded and tougher to avoid the pack riding but I think that the extra lanes would ease some of the congestion so that athletes don't have to feel that "drafting couldn't be helped".

"For a start, use USAT referees as course marshals. They are the best in the world at penalty enforcement. Able to judge intent, absent from intimidation. USAT has to realize that WTC is operating under different demands, and is not the enemy. We(triathletes) are quite capable of understanding the difference between the two. USAT referees would bring WTC years ahead of the game compared to training their own group."



I'm curious why you think USAT referees are "the best in the world." Surely there are some good ones, but why can't GTG train officials to be just as good if not better?

Also, it is my understanding that the head USAT official sent a letter to all USAT officials in June prohibiting them from working at GTG events, stating that it was "not in the best interest of the officials program." I would call that "intimidation."

What do you mean when you say that USAT officials are "able to judge intent, absent from intimidation." Why can't GTG officials do the same thing?

I am curious about your thoughts. I think you have a lot of good ideas about how to improve drafting enforcement and appreciate the time and thought you put into it, but you thoughts here puzzle me.

Sam

I could take a stab at answering some of those, might be the same answers or at least close to what LowCountry might say.

<< I'm curious why you think USAT referees are "the best in the world." Surely there are some good ones, but why can't GTG train officials to be just as good if not better?

there are good and there are not so good officials within the USAT program, but on the whole, I think the officials are the best officials anywhere in the world as well. I haven't raced in every country in the world, but I know from the races that I have done in Europe compared to here in the US, our officials in general are a lot less lenient towards drafting and other rules. GTG can certainly train good officials as well. But as LC said, they are many years behind the learning curve on this. USAT has been training and certifying officials for many years and GTG is just starting. They will probably go through a instruction curve and have to tweak their program many times just to get to where USAT is at this point, for better or worse.

<< Also, it is my understanding that the head USAT official sent a letter to all USAT officials in June prohibiting them from working at GTG events, stating that it was "not in the best interest of the officials program." I would call that "intimidation."

USAT does not sanction the GTG events because in part we don't think it is safe to have age group stand down penalties on certain courses during an Ironman. Why would we then say to our officials, we don't think it's safe, but it's alright for you to go and officiate an unsafe event. USAT invests in the officials and the officials program, why would we want them going out and using USAT training at a non USAT event. To look at it another way, it's like the head of Google sending a memo out to it's employees telling them not to do side work for Yahoo, do you see that as intimidation as well?

<< What do you mean when you say that USAT officials are "able to judge intent, absent from intimidation." Why can't GTG officials do the same thing?

this opens up a whole different can of worms. It will just show you how small of an inscestious (sp?) family within the sport this is. Now first of all, I think Jimmy is doing a good job, he's trying to do the best he can with what is being given to him so this isn't a direct stab at him. That being said, Jimmy, Paula, Huddle etc, they all work for Multisports.com. They also all work for either WTC, GTG or IMNA in one way or another. One of the owners of Multisport.com is also John Duke. John Duke is also the owner/publisher of Triathlete magazine. One of Triathlete magazines bigggest advertisers is WTC/GTG/IMNA. What does Multisports.com do? They put on training camps and coach athletes. Who are some of their athletes? Well aside from a lot of age groupers, Michillie Jones is one. Even though it was there on world wide coverage, did Michillie get a penalty for having her coach, Paula run through the whole T2 at Hawaii with her? Even if it wasn't worthy of a penalty, were any other coaches allowed to run through transition with their athletes? Now what if Paula was a draft marshall? Could she be unbiased in making a call against her star athlete Michillie? I don't have an answer for that, but I wouldn't want to have to find out, I'd rather have completely unbiased officials out there. I used to work as an official, but when I started having races where I had clients competing, I realized it wasn't right and stopped officiating, especially at events where I might have a client competing.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

Thanks for the insight on the WTC, IMNA and GTG connection as well as fincancial interest involved.

Although you mis-read Paula's presence at IMH. She was in TZ as a race commentator, not as a coach ;-)

You very well summarized why I am very suspicious about the way the officiating debate is developing. I have the feeling the whole thing is just used as a "Trojan Horse" to get even more control over age-group competition in Triathlon. On the other side, I am one paranoid SOB.

I actually might join USAT again.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

I may not disagree with you on some of your points about USAT officiating but implying that the WTC/GTG/Multisports association is corrupt based on their business relationships is unwarranted. USAT is not so pure from scandal as to warrant anyone casting stones.

whoa there Mr./Mrs. Anonymous,

I never said or meant to imply that there was any corruption in those relationships. If what I wrote was not true, then correct me, that is fine. Many of those people are also my friends and I'm not casting stones as you say. Just pointing out the facts.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

fair enough

So would USAT not allow someone who coaches athletes to become an official?

<< So would USAT not allow someone who coaches athletes to become an official?


no, not that I know of. But for me personally I just didn't want to put myself in a position of having to make a call on a client. Not that any of my clients get called for anything to begin with, I just didn't want to put myself in that possible scenerio.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org