I agree, partly the fact that people are used to riding in packs and the popularity of ITU racing has legitimized it. Plus it's a business, the race directors want the competitors to 'enjoy' their race experience, regardless of whether they cheat or not.

However, the real problem is the *huge* expansion in IM branded entries. How can you not draft in a 2000+ competitors single start race? There is just not enough tarmac. The solution is simple, go and race a non IM iron-distance event with 300-500 competitors and see how you go. No doubt you'll be surprised how much harder the bike is if you get no draft *whatsoever* and long stints on your own...

SteveMc

Drafting is a problem on both courses, a little less in Roth given the wave starts.
I ran Roth this year as part of a relay. My guess is that the run is up to 1k short.

It is discussed every year in the German speaking forums. I believe that one day an organizer lets someone "officially" measure his course and advert it as such. People start being annoyed not getting the credit for their finishing times from club mates ("I went 9:58 at Austria!" "Hehe, not sub10 again!".

We start calling these races "97.3 IM" (as in 97.3 percent).

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

measure the absolute best performances by times in Hawaii

Why?

With all due respect, why is our sport so IMH-centric? It's almost like the outstanding races and efforts over the weekend do not count. That if these athletes don't go to Hawaii and somehow duplicate their performances there, that it does not really count.

It would be like writing off all of Haile Gebersallsie's outstanding marathon races, because he has not been able to do it in the Olympic Games marathon Indeed, I hear that Geb is choosing not to go to the Olympic Games.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Because like it or not (you clearly don't and that's ok) it is the world championships for the distance.

If an athlete wants to be viewed as "the best" at the distance its stands to reason that they must demonstrate their ability against the very best possible.

Btw, to use your marathon analogy, paula radcliffe is not content only racing london or berlin where she has a shot at a WR but she has also raced new york which isn't a fast course but typically posts a strong field.

---

-----------------------------------------------
www.true-motion.com Triathlete Casual Wear since 2007
(Twitter/FB)

I'll be less polite here the Jordan - definitely drafting is main reason, leading men have much more attention and less surroundings then girls that swim in the middle of the AG pack and then.... just like last years IMFL World Best bike split. I've done Austria 4 times and it's huge in the middle (1999 was short by 2k on the run), I'll talk to top 5 finisher tomorrow and get back

---

Hare Krishna

the course was 2 miles shorter in 1999--the race directors have talked about it alot

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I do believe 2003 ironman hawaii the bike and for sure the run course that year was certified..(25th anniversay) I know the run course was and they handed out boston qualifier certificates at awards for those who ran qualifying times in the marathon part. Now since then don't really know the run course I believe is close to the same except 2003 the transitions were in the parking lot at king kam hotel instead of the pier.

I seem to remember them stating the bike course was measured as well along with the markers they had out on the course..

But that was 2003 hawaii as far as other courses who knows.
Wish they all were it's not that difficult to do and unless you change the course each year it should be the same unless an earthquake changes things.

as far as other courses who knows.

Indeed. Since it's very early days, triathlon has been rather lax about course distance accuracy. Not really sure why this cavelier attitude got going, but it certainly is the way.

I once knew an RD who measured his "10K" runs with how far he could run in 35 minutes! Another who eyeballed the buoys for a "1500m" swim . . and so on. I get it that course logistics for setting up a triathlon can be challenging in finding that right combo of water, road and transitions and getting each leg length right, but these days with accurate measuring tools be they analog or via GPS, it should not be that hard.

This discussion about these European IM races and their rumoured shortness has been going on for years, with no offcial statements about their accuracy. Seems odd to me.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

In 2006 (the new, 2 loop bike course) my hac4 stated 177.33km. I remember that the swim was a bit short in my opinion, or at the best a bit fast. However, the lake is ideal for swimming as it is very calm and has a nice temperature.

Now I think of it, how are bike and run courses measured, or, how should they be measured? Should one measure the ideal racing line, the shortest way possible, an imaginary line on the middle of the road? But then again, that might explain differences of 100 yards, not of miles.

I raced there on Sunday and actually thought it was one of the best-marshalled races I've participated in. Maybe it was just my section of the bike (although I was solid MOP so I doubt it) but I saw marsalls frequently throughout the ride and they stepped in wherever needed. I saw several penalties handed out, and a lot more whistles and verbal warnings for people who weren't blatantly drafting but were maybe slightly infringing. They stepped in a couple of times on hills where some bunching was beginning to take place and told people to break it up.

As a result I saw very little drafting going on. As always, there were quite a few athletes who didn't appear to fully understand the rules but this was evidenced more by them trying to pass straight back after being overtaken rather than trying to hang off your wheel (or more annoyingly, passing me and then immediately sitting up and having a drink, forcing me to drop back and then re-pass). I didn't see any of the mass packs collaborating each other that I have done at some races.

I agree completely with Cartsman--I just didn't see the drafting in this race--although I was riding easy so way back off the front. My sin did see some up front...

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

Hi Herbert,

even though I'd very much like to believe that the 4:30:55h I clocked in a relay last Sunday covered the whole 112ml. I regret to say though that the bike course in Roth is at least 2ml short! My ergomo was in line with the official distance markers for the first 150km. And then, all of a sudden I reach T2 after 175km. The course is at least 500m shorter than in earlier years as they had T2 further "down" the road you reach Roth on.

Concerning the transitions in Roth: They are as fast as they get for an IM. Nothing like the 600y run in Kona or IM CA 70.3. In Roth the average athlete is out of T1 within less than 2min, Pros make it in less than 1:30min. T2 is even quicker, Pete JAcobs was in and out in 55 sec. So that alone makes up for at roughly 2-3min on the Kona course for example.

Well, firstly, hello. A brief foray in to the world of ST!

The musings on the swim times at Roth seem to suggest that the times for Jacobs/Doe/Macca et al are believeable, but not that of Sinballe. To me at least, that's a flawed observation, unless he did a different swim course!

Anyway, on to my two-pennies worth. I've done Roth (so I guess I'm eminently more qualified to comment than most here) and am entered for Austria next year, and do you know what, I'm not even going to argue-the-toss or try and defend the whole measuring issue because it's an emotive, and to an extent, a moot point. It's very hard to ensure 100% accuracy in such events. What next, measured transition areas? FWIW, Roth has very fast/short transitions, which contributes to the overall effect.

My main concern, is that we appear to have some sort of Trans-Atlantic 'biff' going on here. I've not not raced in N America (I'd love to) so I don't feel it's my place to cast doubt on, or whine about courses there. If the roads in Europe are better/faster, the transitions are shorter or the courses are a little bit 'out' so what? It's up to the governing bodies (DTU/WTC or whoever) to sort that out, if they have the appetite for it.

Saliently put, my point is, come here and do the races and get the fast times, or another way....... 'put-up or shut-up'

---

29 years and counting

"My main concern, is what we appear to have is some sort of Trans-Atlantic 'biff' going on here. I've not not raced in N America (I'd love to) so I don't feel it's my place to cast doubt on, or whine about courses there."

i certainly don't see any transatlantic rivalry or enmity, except the one you are now making. we aren't talking about north american races because we aren't producing, and claiming, world bests and world records over here. in europe, there is a penchant for generating such records, in marathons in particular, in berlin, london, rotterdam. this sort of thing is rare in north america. in europe, those times are actively and aggressively courted by course design, and by pacers.

there is nothing wrong with that. but you don't hear "biff" going on about that over here in america, because those european marathon courses are measured. north americans therefore look forward to seeing the results of rotterdam and london. we look forward to seeing the results of golden league meets, but we'd be less impressed with the fast times if the european tracks were 395 meters around instead of 400 meters around.

you've been to roth, i've been to roth. let me ask you this: has anyone ever come up with anything longer than 112mi on their bike computers? or even just 112mi? same thing with austria. if the race organizations want to claim world records, they have to have courses that measure the full 112mi, and the full 26.2mi, or we as a sport have to agree on how short the course can be and still be a world best.

"It's very hard to ensure 100% accuracy in such events... Saliently put, my point is, come here and do the races and get the fast times, or another way....... 'put-up or shut-up'"

in other words, come over here and do our races, and get your PRs, and let's just not talk about the fact that our courses are short. that's what you're saying? i hope not. courses are not hard to measure. rather than you defending your short courses, what if RDs of fast IM-distance courses, whether in almere, or roth, or austria, simply paid for the same course certifiers who work with national and world athletics federations to certify their courses? otherwise, they should quit using the guarantee of fast times as a way to lure people to races. i promise you i could set up a world record IM course... if i didn't have to worry about whether the course was accurate.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

No I'm not defending it; you're twisting what I said. As I said, it's up to the governing bodies to get a grip of this if it's an issue. No-one wants to train for a year & spill their guts for something that's blatantly inaccurate. I did actually make the bike 180.8km, but who's to say any bike computer is particularly accurate, let alone mine! It would be nice if someone from the DTU actually did go out and 'officially' measure the course, the same for Klagenfurt for that matter. Roth is the DTU LD Championship, so you'd like to think it was pretty spot-on. It was noted by a guy who did Roth this weekend that whilst there was a short km on the run, it was immediately followed by a long one; so probably an historically mis-placed marker. Then there's the issue of transitions, a race where athletes run 200-300m to T1 is always going to be slower than Roth where you climb out of the Canal & literally trip-over the clothing-bags!

The point you make about American courses is fair enough; many are clearly tough. The geographical location of events however, is a matter of choice, just like which event to enter is the choice of the athlete. Which is why all the complaining about fast European events doesn't come across well in my opinion; and if records don't matter in other parts of the globe, then why do people question them so much?? What if some of the tough events are short? Have you considered that some of the 'slower/harder' events around the world are inaccurate, but that because they aren't fast no-one questions their accuracy.....?

---

29 years and counting

courses are not hard to measure.

Dan,

So why then is this something that more than few RD's and race management organizations take so lightly?

Where should the lead or the direction on this come from?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

"As I said, it's up to the governing bodies to get a grip of this if it's an issue."

why is this up to the governing bodies? if race directors are going to send out press releases talking about the world records set on their courses, those race directors, along with the athletes who go to get those records and PRs, just look silly if those records are gotten because the courses are short. if the RDs want to point their fingers at the governing bodies and say, "it's up to you to keep us from designing short courses," then fine, but everybody is going to think those RDs are silly.

"who's to say any bike computer is particularly accurate, let alone mine!"

i would say yours is accurate if 25 or 50 or 75 athletes came up with the same. i would say yours is inaccurate if the great majority of those in the race who had bike computers or GPS systems came up with 109mi. that's why i started this thread, not to accuse an RD of putting a 112mi bike ride on a 109mi course, but to ask what the computers of those participants said. if the majority of computers say 109mi, then there's a pretty good chance it's 109mi. all a bike + bike computer is, really, is a very expensive measuring wheel. there's nothing to suggest that bike computers aren't very good ways to determine the distance of the course.

i agree with you, i think governing bodies ought to get involved in this. but they won't, not for IM races, because the system of governance is triathlon is very similar to the system of governance in cycling, that is to say, at the level where people care (mass participation, and high level pro racing outside of the ITU sphere) those governing bodies have made themselves irrelevant. as you might know, the ITU by act of its own congress in 2004 declared itself not the governing body of ironman events. as far as i know, the DTU voted for this resolution, or did not vote against it. so why would the DTU get involved in measuring an IM course, or roth, for that matter?

that's why the RDs ought to measure their own courses in a way that stands up to scrutiny. you keep saying that north americans are complaining about european IM courses. quite the opposite. what we're doing is just not reacting very much at all to these so-called world records. what's really happening is that european athletes, and their managers, and certain race organizations, are saying, "we just set a new WR!" and we north americans are asking, "really? are you sure?" if you call that complaining, have it your way.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Quote:

"why is this up to the governing bodies? if race directors are going to send out press releases talking about the world records set on their courses, those race directors, along with the athletes who go to get those records and PRs, just look silly if those records are gotten because the courses are short."

Like I said, if it's the DTU Long Distance Champs, I'd imagine the onus is on them to ensure the advertised distance is accurate. If they're not bothered and neither are the RDs then we have a problem. A bike computer is only accurate if the calibration is spot-on, and depending on tubs/tyres etc there will always be slight differences which become greater the further the distance. Anyway, I know that's off on bit of a tangent!

Quote:

"I agree with you, i think governing bodies ought to get involved in this Well, we still agree on this then! but they won't, not for IM races, because the system of governance in triathlon at the level where people care (mass participation, and high level pro racing outside of the ITU sphere) those governing bodies have made themselves irrelevant. as you might know, the ITU by act of its own congress in 2004 declared itself not the governing body of ironman events. as far as i know, the DTU voted for this resolution, or did not vote against it. so why would the DTU get involved in measuring an IM course, or roth, for that matter?"

So what's the answer then? Getting 50 people to say I got 110 miles on the bike at Roth isn't going to change anything. Wasn't it the old 3-lap course at Roth that was known to be short? (177km iirc) Are you saying the new 2-lap one is too? In fact no, I think you're just asking for a straw-poll from particpants right? But isn't that just a case of suspicion for its own sake anyway? A more meaningful approach is needed to the issue. We've heard nothing of Frankfurt here, yet the Organisers openly claimed the swim was short & the bike long; does that make Macca's sub-8 invalid too? It's a can of worms Dan!

Quote:

"that's why the RDs ought to measure their own courses in a way that stands up to scrutiny. you keep saying that north americans are complaining about european IM courses. quite the opposite. what we're doing is just not reacting very much at all to these so-called world records. what's really happening is that european athletes, and their managers, and certain race organizations, are saying, "we just set a new WR!" and we north americans are asking, "really? are you sure?" if you call that complaining, have it your way. "

Well react; this has been my point throughout! The WTC was based in America last time I checked, why don't you lobby them to check the WTC IM races in Europe, or validate all WTC races?! Unless I'm mistaken, you're better 'equipped' than most to make the point. Okay, Roth falls outside their Bailiwick, but it's a start.

---

29 years and counting

[snip]

to bring this full circle, what we had here was a couple of gals, yvonne van vlerken and sandra wallenhorst, and the discussion is whether one's 8:45 or the other's 8:47 is the official IM world record or world best. one of these gals doesn't race outside of europe and the other has posted average pro woman's times when racing on what we know are legit courses in the western hemisphere.

does it pass the test of reasonableness to say, yes, these women are faster athletes than PNF over this distance, the fastest athletes of all time? how have they faired against sam mcglone, kate major, and the like, over the IM distance? until these women break 5hr on the bike ride at canada or in kona, and run sub-3hr on what we know are legit courses, they're going to have this question over their performances. and, it's not really fair to them, because i'm certain they're marvelous athletes.

they, themselves, as well as vanhoenacker, mccormack, vernay, and so forth, ought to be asking that the courses be accurate, so that these performances can be legitimized. van vlerken got to the finish at roth in 8:45, two minutes in front of erika csomor. van vlerken doesn't often race good athletes over known legit courses, but what of erika? she has had a marvelous year, but show me where she's done anything close to a world best IM time. last year in kona csomor had a good day, she had her wonderful, almost 3-flat, run, but off a 1:03 swim and a 5-and-a-half hour ride. she had a great day at IM arizona, and beat michellie jones by 10 minutes, but that still put erika almost a half-hour behind the time she just posted in roth. and arizona is not a slow course, when 4 guys not yet at the very top ranks of IM racing go 8:35 or better.

so, again, this isn't a euro versus north america fight. it's just that we over here would prefer it if you, over there, announce and pronounce your world records on courses that we, over here, can have confidence in. it's your onus to do that if you don't want to rob your own athletes of the glory they deserve when those courses are not accurately measured. and, since you know in advance that those are fast courses, and that these records are likely to be set, so much more the urgency to take the precautions you ought to take to ward off those suspicions. erika csomor swam 1:03 in kona last year. she swam 59:08 in arizona earlier this year, 7:30 behind michellie and hillary biscay. in oceanside 70.3, she swam a tick under 29 minutes, almost 4min slower than leanda cave, who herself was outswam by a minute by linda gallo. erika just swam 53:37 in roth. maybe that 53min swim in roth is legit. but it's certainly suspicious, and it does erika no good service to have that cloud hanging over such a wonderful performance.

no doubt the athletes reading this who posted these fast times will think me a killjoy, denigrating their fine performances. but i'm not the one to blame. blame the RDs who promise fast times at their races, but don't do anything to legitimize those fast times once their set.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I do understand where you're coming from with this; so we'll bring it back to your first post. Yes the results do seem quite a surprise given previous results at other events (although Van Vlerken did 8:51 last year too). But there is a big 'however' in your argument as far as I'm concerned, and it's the same point I made with your synopsis of the mens' swim splits. You can't say, "oh that's about right for the established top athletes" and then question the legitimacy of someone else's time when they've done it on the same course. You either tar everyone with the same brush or you don't. So if PNF does a WR on the course and you don't call it suspicious, then you're not being equitable to the females racing in this era when you doubt their times, regardless of how accurate the courses are. You didn't say whether you're still referring to the old 3-lap bike course; it's pretty pertinent if you ignored the fact the course has changed.

I'm defending no-one here, and I have no allegences, I just think your argument is flawed because you appear to be selective about who's times your suspicion falls on.

If you're prepared to question the times of Van Lierde, Hellriegel, Zack, Macca, Leder, Al Sultan etc then we could move forward with a legitimate argument at least, and question whether this course should be measured again "accurately".

---

29 years and counting

This logic is faulty. If you look at the Roth results list, you see that Leanda Cave also took part in the race. She swam 53:02, so not much faster than Erika. Why Erika swam so much faster in Roth? I don't know. Maybe it's the wetsuit, maybe she does not swim good in salt water, maybe she found a good pair of feet. Perhaps she has improved her swim, where she surely had potential coming from a duathlon background. In comparison to Leanda Cave this 53 min swim is certainly not suspicious. (and no, there is not the possibility that she cut the course)

And concerning the remark that the RD doesn't comment on this, it's also wrong. Felix Walchshöfer, Roth's Race Director, has made a statement on this very forum:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=1377909#1377909

People often wonder why there are so many good times in Roth. Well, Felix has pointed it out in his post, as has Francois done very well in the other thread. You also have to consider that the field in Roth is much, much better that in all other Ironman Races other than Hawaii. Nearly every athlete in the Roth TOP 10 is a Ironman (not necessarily WTC) Winner, with the exception of Sindballe (but 3rd at Kona) and Pete Jacobs. And there are other Ironman winners outside the Top 10, as Raynard Tissink and quite some DNFs with high Ironman Rankings (Macca, Olaf Sabatschus, Steffen Liebetrau, Kieran Doe, ...) And there are always quite a few 'up and coming' athletes like Maik Twelsiek, who finised several times in the Top 10 of Roth before he won IM Wisconsin. So it is no wonder why there are over 30 sub 9 finishers.

And if you look at the other times: Sindballe's 4:22 bike is just like he has done twice in Kona but in weather conditions that suit him better (no heat), Maccas 2:45 last year in comparison to his 2:42 in Kona. Patrick Vernay has run 2:48 in IM Western Australia, 2:51 in IM Australia and 2:47 in Roth, which does not indicate that the run is shorter than elsewhere. Same with Sindballe, 3:02 in Roth and 2:57 in Kona (though he reportedly had injury problems this spring).

"You either tar everyone with the same brush or you don't."

i'm happy to tar everyone. let's put it this way. on the old 3-lap course, back in 1992, my ex raced in a full-blown asthma attack the whole way, had a horrible race, worst race of the year, and went 9:12 for 6th place. a few months later, she went 9:08 in canada, posting what is still the only woman's bike ride under 5hr on that course, followed by a 3:08 run. the following month she was second in kona in 9:21. let me tell you, there was not 4min of difference between penticton and roth. probably closer to 40min difference.

paula won that race in roth, in 8-something, limping through her 3rd ultra in 4 weekends.

part of what was wrong with roth back then was drafting which, back then, was unique to germany. the duathlon worlds in frankfurt, the race in roth, was run under conditions which were simply scandalous. other than the very few pro men whom even the packs couldn't ride with, you were at a big disadvantage if you weren't sucked up into a pack of 40, 50, or 60 riders. i'm not saying that only happened in germany, or that it doesn't happen in the U.S., i'm saying that back in the late 80s and early 90s it was a revelation for north americans to go to germany and find out that the race was draft legal in practice tho not in fact.

the other problem with roth back then was that the course was short, according to the bike computers on bikes of various athletes with whom i was in contact (tho this was just heresay and not a formal investigation). this, and the drafting, and to some degree the good weather, is why these gals would literally race roth 45 minutes faster than they would race kona. but the weather didn't make a 45min difference by itself, maybe a 15min difference.

this is why, from the days of thea sybesma's ultra-fast euro-raced IM-distance times until now, north americans remember what conditions in europe are historically often like: blatant drafting, the occasional short course. so, when someone like me, who raced kona in 1981 and has seen the sport begin and grow throughout europe, there's a lot of history that european races should endeavor to overcome. yes, there were obvious examples of european races that bucked that trend: embrun, zofingen (under urs linsi and bruno imfeld). those, however, seemed the exception, not the rule.

i'm not saying there's anything wrong with roth's course or austria's course today. but, that's the history. against that backdrop, when journeyman female pros are breaking 9hr on these courses, it's fair to ask what makes a course 30min faster than canada, 45min faster than kona.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[snip]

see my most recent post on the history of this and other euro races.

the answer is simple: if what you want to do is produce WR or world best times; if this is important to any RD at a course like this; then he needs to do two things: he needs to make extra sure there is no drafting, again taking into consideration historical norms, and asking oneself, without prejudice, what country in the world is known for its triathletes' riding habits in races; and he needs to certify his course thru an organization that does this professionally. has either of these things happened? if so, i missed it.

everyone wants to see records broken. i want to see records broken. but, when bobby bonds breaks hank aaron's home run record, i want to see it done righteously. when the records fall in triathlon, i want to see them go down righteously. you just rob the athletes of their due glory if you, as the RD, do not take pains to make sure the race is fairly contested on a fair and accurate course.

in the old old days, just before the race in roth 16 years ago that i attended, the pre-race meeting included some edict about how, "it's not going to be like in past years. there will be no drafting allowed!" and then it was just like the year before. it occurred to me that this dance must happen every year. so, show me the course certification from a professional course certifier. and show me the ass-kicking head ref that all the german athletes hate because he penalizes and DQs them, show me this guy hired by the RD to bring in his crew of officials (if there is one such guy in europe). then, if some gal goes 8:25 i'll say, fine, new WR, good on her.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well, it's bedtime here, so I'll be brief.

Sloman, I accept a great many of your points, but still feel you're ignoring anything valid that comes back in your direction (Tobias made good points, as have I).

Let me leave you with this point as far as 'surprises' in the world of Female Professional Triathlon go......What went through your mind when Chrissie won Kona, her second IM, because it sure as hell wasn't 'oh darn, the course must be short' There's a precedent for everything. There's a changing-of-the-guard going on at the top of Female Pro Triathlon....and what, that's unusual??

I'll let you get back to your cherry-picking

Goodnight.

J

---

29 years and counting