So what rules were changed that Lucy is talking about?
This is gonna be good.
Meanwhile, on Twitter…
What’s going on here?
Is shit rolling down hill to Lucy by way of Ironman CEO? Maybe Lucy needs to defect to ST and expose this terrible injustice.
Lucy, you are safe here.
.
It seems that some women are the biggest opponents of equality. Funny that.
It seems that some women are the biggest opponents of equality. Funny that.
How so? Like the OP I don’t know what this is really about.
These tweets are over 2 weeks old? I think Lucy got her panties all twisted without knowing what Ironman was doing.
This is a tweet from the next day:
I only know 1/2 the story and nothing agreed yet.Expect i should have restrained myself yesterday but i was pretty angry
thanks
.
http://www.trirating.com/...tes-to-the-kpr-2015/
I don’t think this is what got her upset. I think it may have been about possibly having more women to equal the men, hence changing qualification process 8 weeks before Kona. Saying they are ditching pro race post Kona doesn’t effect this years qualification.
She was confused, thought that the announcements about 2015 applied this year.
At least that is the impression I got wasting my time scrolling her Twitter feed.
Everyone, meet today’s misogynist, who would equate opposing a change in mid season qualification rules with opposing equality.
Imagine if you will, that you did an Ironman a month out from Kona to get the points you needed, to find out days later that you didn’t need those points after all. Now you will be competing against athletes who are fresh and didn’t go through that ordeal.
Assuming that is what her complaint is about, it is totally warranted and logical.
Mid season rule changes are the fucking worst. See - UCI and shifter minutiae TT rules this year. I swear I will write strongly worded emails to the guy who made that happen if I ever find out who it was.
It seems that some women are the biggest opponents of equality. Funny that.
Since I’ve already been branded a misogynist, then I’ll go ahead and say that even if I don’t know you personally, you sound like a little bitch.
This could get interesting.
The opportunity was given to the women to have equal slots for this year assuming there was a pretty universal consensus among the top women that they actually wanted them.
This was all part of the push for equal slots. There was a meeting with many of the women - and ALL women were given the opportunity to join via conference call - that was initiated and set up by the women after IM Boulder. Rachel Joyce - the “rachel” Andrew refers to in his tweet - was spearheading the effort to have the meeting and then afterward collecting the women’s input. Basically, if the women - as a whole - wanted equal slots this year, they could have them, with the recognition that some women might have planned their seasons different had they known.
So there was no “moving of the goal posts.” The women were given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not they wanted the goal posts moved this year. As a whole, they decided they did not want that.
Part of the requirement was that ALL women in the top-50 (and Rebekah Keat actually reached out all the way down to 70) had to be given the chance to weigh in. So, exactly what Lucy said happened. It just didn’t come directly from Andrew. It came from Rachel (and Rebekah). Guessing Lucy got an email from Rachel probably soon after she fired off that tweet.
Basically just a good example why if - as Lucy admits - she only had 1/2 the story, probably best not to go ranting on twitter about it before you have the whole story.
So there was no “moving of the goal posts.” The women were given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not they wanted the goal posts moved this year. As a whole, they decided they did not want that.
Thanks Jordan.
Out of interest, why didnt they go for it?
Surely more women on the start line would be better. More opportunity for exposure for their sponsors etc… experience on the championship course. etc…
Better for who? Only the women who have missed the cutoff, not those already qualified. Theory being they all would have raced differently given 50 slots vs 35 if that was the original plan. And all the top 50 needed to say yes. Why would those who planned their season under one set of rules and qualify agree to change things 2 months out from Kona to help others?
Jordan, thanks for the insight, always good to get information from somebody that actually knows a story, as opposed to the rounds of speculation that usually happen here. That said, do you think this means that for next year they will expand the field of women? Hard to imagine anybody objecting to it as long as it is laid out now.
I know your question was addressed to Jordan but I have to think that asking the female pros if they would like it this year (i.e. changing the game midway during the year) has to mean that next year there are equal male and female pros. Is that 50 each? I dont know.