I was in Shreveport over the weekend. Watched the race, talked to lots of athletes - and have decided it would be useful to discuss the appropriate standards for such an event.
This event should be one of the highlights on USAT's calendar. It should bring together the best and the brightest from the age group ranks, help knit us together as a national sport, and provide an exclamation point to an entire season. USAT does invest a considerable amount of time on this project, but, IMO, the bottom line for USAT is just that: the bottom line. Good sites are often passed over, or never considered in the first place, in favor of the "highest bidder". And that is, again in my opinion, a mistake.
In my view, the USAT National Triathlon Olympic Distance Championship should be granted to a city/organizer that can meet the following specifications. If that happens to be the "highest bidder", terrific . . . but if not, specs should prevail over profit. After all, USAT has nearly $4,000,000 in the bank right now - it can afford a few thousand to make sure its championship is a very special event.
Let's talk non-negotiable standards first. Here's mine, in order of priority:
1. TIME OF YEAR. The race ought to act as a climax to a season, but it needs to be early enough to ensure that athletes from northern states will have reasonable weather in which to train. October 4 (Shreveport, 2003) is too late - the temperatures in the Great Lakes region can plummet once September rolls around (as they did this year). June (Clermont, 1998) is too early - it just doesn't sum up the season. Labor Day weekend (St. Joseph in 1999 and 2000, Coeur d'Alene in 2001 and 2002) is about perfect.
2. BIKE COURSE. Nothing, NOTHING is more important for a successful championship. Some athletes had no trouble on Shreveport's flat, one-lane bike course - but congestion and drafting was a huge problem for many others. Flat, one-lane courses are o.k. at a local race, with smaller numbers and a wider range of abilities. But the Shreveport field was over 1,200 strong, and the range of abilities was small; in the 35-39 men's field, for example, you had 70 athletes who swam and rode the course within three minutes of each other. That's a recipe for drafting problems.
In other words, a championship course needs a championship bike course. The ideal course would have lots of hills, smooth pavement, and at least two lanes over much of the course. Orange County (1996) met those specs perfectly, and so did Coeur d'Alene. Clermont had lots of hills, and even though it didn't have two lanes in all places, it still took care of much of the drafting opportunities. Even Columbia (1994 and 1997) worked because of the hills and Leon's (1990, 1991, 1993) did too because - even though primarily flat - it had three lanes over much of the route. But Shreveport was another story.
3. BODY OF WATER. IMO, we ought to ensure the swim will be in a body of water that someone would actually consider swimming in of their own choice. Coeur d'Alene was terrific. St. Joseph was borderline lousy - and Shreveport, if anything, was even worse. The man-made "lagoon" was no more than eight feet deep, with the bottom covered with 18" or more of ooze and with water so ugly you couldn't see your hand as it entered. Additionally, the lake is very narrow, so much so that the course had to have two 180 degree turns. And because the lake is used by competitive waterskiers, there were permanent structures and course markers throughout the route of the triathlon swim. Three different athletes I talked to smashed their hands on one or another of these objects along the way.
4. MAJOR AIRPORT. I believe the race ought to be within 40 miles of a major airport . . . and I would define "major"' as being served by jets which can actually bring in both you and your bike. Athletes going to Shreveport were warned that the jets serving that city were small and could only carry one or two bikes at a time. So a huge number of athletes had to make other plans. Many of us flew to Dallas and drove back to Shreveport - but that was 200 miles each way. Others sent their bikes by FedEx or UPS - but to make sure they reached Shreveport in time, they had to package them up 8-10 days prior to the event. Sorry: not everyone has an extra bike on which to train.
5. CITY APPRECIATION. The host city ought to WANT the event. Shreveport didn't do badly on this specification; the people putting it on were very friendly and did a good job with what they had to work with. But, on the most crucial issue - the bike course - they didn't have the political will to close enough roads. Instead the bike course ended up going twice up and down a five-mile portion of a parkway (out in one of the two north-bound lanes, back in the other north-bound land, u-turn around the median, then out in one of the two southbound lanes and back in the other), with a weird out-and-back on a two-lane service road behind some athletic fields added to get an exact 40K. Shreveport was willing to have the race, but only so long as we didn't get in anyone's way.
Lew
This event should be one of the highlights on USAT's calendar. It should bring together the best and the brightest from the age group ranks, help knit us together as a national sport, and provide an exclamation point to an entire season. USAT does invest a considerable amount of time on this project, but, IMO, the bottom line for USAT is just that: the bottom line. Good sites are often passed over, or never considered in the first place, in favor of the "highest bidder". And that is, again in my opinion, a mistake.
In my view, the USAT National Triathlon Olympic Distance Championship should be granted to a city/organizer that can meet the following specifications. If that happens to be the "highest bidder", terrific . . . but if not, specs should prevail over profit. After all, USAT has nearly $4,000,000 in the bank right now - it can afford a few thousand to make sure its championship is a very special event.
Let's talk non-negotiable standards first. Here's mine, in order of priority:
1. TIME OF YEAR. The race ought to act as a climax to a season, but it needs to be early enough to ensure that athletes from northern states will have reasonable weather in which to train. October 4 (Shreveport, 2003) is too late - the temperatures in the Great Lakes region can plummet once September rolls around (as they did this year). June (Clermont, 1998) is too early - it just doesn't sum up the season. Labor Day weekend (St. Joseph in 1999 and 2000, Coeur d'Alene in 2001 and 2002) is about perfect.
2. BIKE COURSE. Nothing, NOTHING is more important for a successful championship. Some athletes had no trouble on Shreveport's flat, one-lane bike course - but congestion and drafting was a huge problem for many others. Flat, one-lane courses are o.k. at a local race, with smaller numbers and a wider range of abilities. But the Shreveport field was over 1,200 strong, and the range of abilities was small; in the 35-39 men's field, for example, you had 70 athletes who swam and rode the course within three minutes of each other. That's a recipe for drafting problems.
In other words, a championship course needs a championship bike course. The ideal course would have lots of hills, smooth pavement, and at least two lanes over much of the course. Orange County (1996) met those specs perfectly, and so did Coeur d'Alene. Clermont had lots of hills, and even though it didn't have two lanes in all places, it still took care of much of the drafting opportunities. Even Columbia (1994 and 1997) worked because of the hills and Leon's (1990, 1991, 1993) did too because - even though primarily flat - it had three lanes over much of the route. But Shreveport was another story.
3. BODY OF WATER. IMO, we ought to ensure the swim will be in a body of water that someone would actually consider swimming in of their own choice. Coeur d'Alene was terrific. St. Joseph was borderline lousy - and Shreveport, if anything, was even worse. The man-made "lagoon" was no more than eight feet deep, with the bottom covered with 18" or more of ooze and with water so ugly you couldn't see your hand as it entered. Additionally, the lake is very narrow, so much so that the course had to have two 180 degree turns. And because the lake is used by competitive waterskiers, there were permanent structures and course markers throughout the route of the triathlon swim. Three different athletes I talked to smashed their hands on one or another of these objects along the way.
4. MAJOR AIRPORT. I believe the race ought to be within 40 miles of a major airport . . . and I would define "major"' as being served by jets which can actually bring in both you and your bike. Athletes going to Shreveport were warned that the jets serving that city were small and could only carry one or two bikes at a time. So a huge number of athletes had to make other plans. Many of us flew to Dallas and drove back to Shreveport - but that was 200 miles each way. Others sent their bikes by FedEx or UPS - but to make sure they reached Shreveport in time, they had to package them up 8-10 days prior to the event. Sorry: not everyone has an extra bike on which to train.
5. CITY APPRECIATION. The host city ought to WANT the event. Shreveport didn't do badly on this specification; the people putting it on were very friendly and did a good job with what they had to work with. But, on the most crucial issue - the bike course - they didn't have the political will to close enough roads. Instead the bike course ended up going twice up and down a five-mile portion of a parkway (out in one of the two north-bound lanes, back in the other north-bound land, u-turn around the median, then out in one of the two southbound lanes and back in the other), with a weird out-and-back on a two-lane service road behind some athletic fields added to get an exact 40K. Shreveport was willing to have the race, but only so long as we didn't get in anyone's way.
Lew