From my post today at www.johnhirsch.org
SURIVIALISM
June 10th, 2007
I raced Saturday at a sprint tri. I wanted to write a funny race report. But everytime I try I end up half explaining why I was doing this race in the first place.
USA Triathlon, who I generally like passed a rule that pro/elites need to requilify. There is nothing wrong with that per se. The problem is how they constructed the rule. it requires that every pro have a race where they are in the top 8 and the race offers more thank 5 thousands dollars in prize money. Guess how many races had that last year that I did? 1, ironman. guess how many americans where in the top 8? 1. As ironman athletes we normally only race 1 or two races a year with 5k in prize money. Given the long history between USAT and Ironman its not surprising that the rule hurts ironman athletes.
The fall out from this is pretty interesting. Long course athletes realizing that ironmans are insanely competetive are now looking at the standard for turning pro for rookies which is mildly easier. That requires 3 top 8 finishes in races of 500 people or more. Few races have 500. Also, again since going long 3 times a year is unhealthy, it means we are all racing big sprints, oly distance and a few halfs. This couldn’t be more unfair for ironman distance athletes. Its like requiring tour de france riders to qualify at crits, or marathoners to win half mile track meets.
The real loser is the sport. First off it means that pro/elites are filling big races. Sold out fields are the ones most likely to be the ones with 500 people. If I am taking a spot at White Lake for example, then someone else doesn’t get to race. What a waste, when I could enjoy a local event and that person could do a race they really want to do. Don’t get me wrong it was really fun to race Whitelake, but I bet an age-grouper would have enjoyed it too. Also new races, which would benefit from pros showing up, raising the races profile and taking part, are left out. Last year for example I did the Harriman half iron. The hard course, and newness of the race made it really cool but not well know. I did the race and loved it. I wrote about it. I talked about it. This year I couldn’t do that race because I had to focus on 500 plus size fields. I don’t think that’s good for anyone.
USAT really got this wrong when you realize that while going long is not popular with USAT, its very popular with the triathlon community. The fastest growing races are the 70.3, 101 and ironman. All need and want pros. USAT should be helping to cultivate and encourage us so we are well respresented, rather then hurting us by forcing us to do sprint races. Americans lack of socialized education and health care already makes it harder to “go pro” at ironman (student loans and health care costs have forced many of us into day jobs that our european and canadian fellow athletes don’t have) we shouldn’t also have a governing body that provides an additional barrier.
Again long live USAT, but this rule isn’t well crafted.
your usat comments seem to make sense although i don’t know the other side of the argument. i do think you diluted them a bit with the education and health care mini rant. last time i checked public schools are available all over the US, there are even state colleges that don’t cost very much. if you want to discuss the quality that is a debatable topic, but existence is not.
What is SURVIALISM? I was always taught that if you are writing an important letter to ensure that you double check it for errors. Given the state of your spelling and grammar I fear those college loans may have been wasted…
I took the title of the post from a new song by NIN.
I worked really hard to get myself through undergrad and then Columbia Law School despite a pretty serious learning disability. Thanks for making fun of me, thats classy.
You are writing an open letter to USAT on a public internet forum, any thought given to sending it to USAT? They have a website with contact email addresses and everything.
Alex
Sorry for your problems but you should still have checked or had someone check your letter, these things do matter if you want to be taken seriously. There’s a letter missing from the word I asked about and a whole load of other mistakes, it’s obvious that you didn’t even bother running spellcheck which seems a little remiss for what, I assume, is a very important piece of writing for you.
Good luck in your races, I hope you do well. I know nothing about you except what you’ve put in this thread so my comments were based entirely upon my perception of your letter which, to me, is still poorly written and too whiney in tone. I’m hardly making fun of your disability if I don’t know about it.
this was posted on my site in response to my post…
Kerry Litka Says:
June 10th, 2007 at 9:01 pm e
That’s so retarded. Even USA Cycling isn’t that inept. In fact, once you upgrade to any category in USCF, you have to REQUEST a downgrade and have a pretty damn good reason for doing that. You’re in for life once you make it to the next level. A Pro license in cycling only exists for the men and it only is taken out when one is a member of a registered Pro team…but if you don’t have a USPRO license, you are still a Cat 1. The pro license is really only a formality for members of UCI pro teams.
That is so unbelievably lame. USA Cycling doesn’t allow for random downgrades for the specific reason that it takes away opportunities and prize money from lower categories.
I don’t win very many big races now that I am a Cat 2. If I asked USA Cycling if I could go be a Cat 3 again they’d tell me to fuck off, that I earned my rightful place in the 2s and that it wouldn’t be fair to make me a 3 again and take prize money and upgrade points away from another 3.
For once, USA Cycling is the voice of reason. Who knew?
KL, your fellow fake pro
Great, not only did I misspell a ton of real words, I misspelled a fake word created by Trent Reznor of NIN. I need to not only get spell check but get the industrial music version.
John, the post for Kerry is right on. Once a person is/was a pro, should they be allowed to go back to being an AG just because they can
no longer win at the pro level? Been lots of interesting discussions about this very topic on ST. And as more of the older pros can not
compete at that level anymore, but can still and always kick the AGers butts, …
John, the post for Kerry is right on. Once a person is/was a pro, should they be allowed to go back to being an AG just because they can
no longer win at the pro level? Been lots of interesting discussions about this very topic on ST. And as more of the older pros can not
compete at that level anymore, but can still and always kick the AGers butts, …
Dave
That’s the USCF advantage. Older Cat 1/2 can race masters. Most races have 35+, 45+ and 55+ masters which is a mixed Cat 1-4 race, usually sligthly more competitive than an open Cat 3 race. Seems like a great system and it gives you flexbility.
For example a 35+ Cat 4 will probably chose to race regular 4s as it is usually easier than the Maters 35+. The 35+ Cat 2 could still race up if they wanted (pro/1/2) or race the masters.
Is it really that difficult to find races with more than 500 people? There will be at least three in the state of Iowa in June…and I don’t think Iowa is exactly a triathlon hotbed.
Did they also change the “rookie” rule? I thought at one time you could do races with under 500 people but then had to have finishes in the top 3 or 5 or something.
You mention that you are fine with the rule, per se, but disagree with the way the rule is written. What changes would you make?
Currently there was 1 in my home state of Rhode Island, none in Connecticut and only a few in Mass.
The old run was 3 top 10s in races with 200 people or more were you finish within 10% of the winning time.
I think at this point it would be nice if they would just toss the requalifing rule. I don’t see there being a real problem with more pro/elites in the ranks. In fact, many races now have elite waves where anyone can race even if you don’t have a pro/elite card. I think thats good and healthy for the events and I really enjoy races where people are encouraged to race in the first wave head to head. It makes for more fun racing.
If they wanna keep the requalifing rule they should have an ironman re-qualifing requirement. I think maybe top 50 at an ironman? Maybe top 20? I am not sure where people would want to draw the line but I think top 8 is just unfair. Look up the top 8 at Ironman USA for example, thats just a sick crew. In fact the whole top 15 is sick. I think 25 would be fair but maybe because I am in the top 25.
Also USAT makes us pay a more for our elite cards above the standard USAT membership, so I am not sure why they want to thin the heard.
You want to be a pro. You want to race Ironmans. You can’t finish at the top 8 of an ironman because it’s a “sick crew”. I’m sorry but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You are a professional triathlete. It is your job. Sometimes you have to do things at your job you don’t like doing. Welcome to the real world. Maybe you have to race races you don’t enjoy, race distances you don’t enjoy, use equipment you don’t particularly like. Hmmm.
My boss sure doesn’t have much pitty on me when the realities of my job require me to show up at work at 2 am on a Sunday to fix a server…it’s part of the gig - live with it.
That is not what he said. To retain a card, one top 8 finish in a race with over $5K in prize money. To get a card (the “rookie” rule) is 3 top 8s in races over 500. Two different rules.
The three races I am thinking of are Pigman Sprint, Quad Cities, and HyVee.
Triathlete License
This license is for athletes wishing to race as an elite in any USAT sanctioned event at any distance (from sprint to ultra) and format (triathlons, duathlons, off road events, winter events, etc.). This license costs $100 and expires December 31 of the year in which it was issued.
Qualification criteria: Any athlete who chooses to compete as an elite triathlete must meet at least one of the three (3) criteria listed below:
CRITERIA A:
Finish top-eight overall and within 8 percent of the overall winner’s time, according to gender, in at least three (3) USAT sanctioned events that occurred within the past 12 months and had at least 500 participants. No exceptions will be made.
CRITERIA B:
Finish within 8 percent of the overall winner’s time in at least two (2) ultra- distance events that included an elite field (offering $5k or greater in prize purse) that occurred within the past 12 months and had at least 500 participants. Ultra distance is defined as any distance equal to or greater than a 4K swim, 112-mile bike and 26.2-mile run. Events must have been sanctioned by USA Triathlon. No exceptions will be made.
CRITERIA C:
Finish within 8 percent of the overall winner’s time in one (1) ultra-distance event that included an elite field (offering $5k or greater in prize purse) that occurred within the past 12 months and had at least 500 participants AND finish top-eight and within 8 percent of the overall winner’s time, according to gender, in at least one (1) USAT sanctioned event that occurred within the past 12 months and had at least 500 participants.
