IMCDA Wurtelle using Sym's bike to finish = DQ?

Triathlon Forum
41

SO if she had strapped her bike to her back then and rode the tiny bike she would have been ok?

Good question to ask at the next race meeting.

In fact the only way the USAT will really start to listen is at EVERY RACE MEETING to ask lots of questions about what is and what isn’t outside assistance, what is and what is not allowed, and after every official has been asked 3 dozen times, I think they will push it up the chain and USAT will clarify the rules in this area.

From conversations I have had, in your scenario, that would be considered a forward progress violation, since a bike other than hers was being used to make the progress.

Now if she strapped the bike over her shoulders and ran with it, that would have been fine.

42

As sad as this is for Team Wurtele, I gotta say this was the right call. This was not a WTC rule it was a USAT rule. This was not the same case as Chrissie getting a Co2 from Keat. This was a straight-up bike swap, and should not be allowed. Rule 5.2 is there for a reason.

Here’s and example why: Imagine a course that has the first 80% miles of relatively flat terrain on the bike, then lots of climbing. With either a “teammate” or a pre-decided “ally” a racer could start out on a tri bike, with the other on a lightweight roadbike with some clipons. Then when the pair gets to the climb, they switch bikes, letting the favorite benefit from the climbing/road bike and gain advantage. Seems unlikely, but if they didn’t have this kind of rule, all sorts of this kind of thing would happen. Then it’s no longer an individual sport. It’s who can cut corners the best.

Now that the heat of the moment has worn off… she puts in in good perspective on her blog. http://wurtele.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/fail/

43

As sad as this is for Team Wurtele, I gotta say this was the right call. This was not a WTC rule it was a USAT rule. This was not the same case as Chrissie getting a Co2 from Keat. This was a straight-up bike swap, and should not be allowed. Rule 5.2 is there for a reason.

Here’s and example why: Imagine a course that has the first 80% miles of relatively flat terrain on the bike, then lots of climbing. With either a “teammate” or a pre-decided “ally” a racer could start out on a tri bike, with the other on a lightweight roadbike with some clipons. Then when the pair gets to the climb, they switch bikes, letting the favorite benefit from the climbing/road bike and gain advantage. Seems unlikely, but if they didn’t have this kind of rule, all sorts of this kind of thing would happen. Then it’s no longer an individual sport. It’s who can cut corners the best.

Now that the heat of the moment has worn off… she puts in in good perspective on her blog. http://wurtele.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/fail/

Same can be for giving equipment… i.e. You carry tools, CO2, an extra tire/tubular/tubes, you are carrying extra weight. May only add up to a pound or so, but it will make a difference so being able to ride light and receive from a Sherpa does make a difference.

What I am not sure, and I cannot remember, is if Chrissie received a penalty when Rebecca gave her the CO2, or if the rules have since been adjusted, but I think that should have just been a time penalty, which is what I think Heather interpreted what happened to be the worst she could receive.

Regardless, I think people need to pester the USAT to clearly state what is and what is not allowed and I think because of the Chrissie incident, as well as what I have heard USAT judges state (other racers are part of course, and not outside assistance) the rules are ambiguous

44

Racers are not considered outside assistance…

Rule 3.4d doesn’t appear to discriminate between racers and non-racers. Where is it written that racers are not considered outside assistance?

45

Racers are not considered outside assistance.

Can you quote the rule that clarifies this? 3.4d doesn’t say ‘outside’ assistance, it says ‘unauthorized’ assistance and pretty clearly means anyone not a race official.

**Article 3.4d. Unauthorized Assistance. **
“No participant shall accept from any person (other than a race official) physical assistance in any form, including food, drink, equipment, support, pacing, a replacement bicycle or bicycle parts, unless an express exception has been granted and approved, in writing, by USA Triathlon. The receipt of information regarding the progress, split times, or location of other competitors on the race course shall not be considered the acceptance of unauthorized assistance. Any violation of this section shall result in a variable time penalty.”

46

What advantage or situation is either rule aimed at preventing? Does only accepting aid from race staff supposedly keep someone from having a supply mule/participant on the course? Does swapping bikes theoretically create a team atmosphere in an individual sport? What is considered the bike? Have racers swapped wheels without DQ?

47

Racers are not considered outside assistance.

Can you quote the rule that clarifies this? 3.4d doesn’t say ‘outside’ assistance, it says ‘unauthorized’ assistance and pretty clearly means anyone not a race official.

**Article 3.4d. Unauthorized Assistance. **
“No participant shall accept from any person (other than a race official) physical assistance in any form, including food, drink, equipment, support, pacing, a replacement bicycle or bicycle parts, unless an express exception has been granted and approved, in writing, by USA Triathlon. The receipt of information regarding the progress, split times, or location of other competitors on the race course shall not be considered the acceptance of unauthorized assistance. Any violation of this section shall result in a variable time penalty.”

I have been at race meetings where this was asked of the Head USAT Official and told repeated times that other racers considered part of the course.

You will also note that a variable time penalty is the remedy for this violation, and not a DQ, which would be what the assesment is for 5.2

Now whether Heather would have been assessed a 4 minute penalty is she received a bike part would be a completely different matter.

Again, this is something the USAT needs to be hammered on for COMPLETE clarification as to what is and is not a penalty, because I have been at race meeting where other racers are considered part of the course.

48

The sad part is that with just 12 miles to go she could have pedaled one legged and probably just lost 4 or 5 minutes. I have done rides with PT and he can ride 20+mph one legged for a long time. It probably just didn’t cross her mind as she never did it in training. Might have run in circles afterwards though…(-;

49

Agreed … looks better when two women are doing it :slight_smile:

Thats what she said

50

What advantage or situation is either rule aimed at preventing? Does only accepting aid from race staff supposedly keep someone from having a supply mule/participant on the course? Does swapping bikes theoretically create a team atmosphere in an individual sport? What is considered the bike? Have racers swapped wheels without DQ?

I believe the wheel is the bike but a tube isnt. (im assuming the rule is anything a rider would be expected to normally carry in their bag. maybe a folding tire even) the whole idea is to prevent domestiques. I wonder in a race that intentionally is being stocked with domestiques by many teams (the olympics) if the rules differ.

51

So many loopholes in this rule so it’s even more frustrating that officials decided to negate the great sportsmanship shown by Christie. What if Christie had “sold” Heather her bike (with a gel, whatever) and Heather had done the same… now they are finishing the course on their respective bikes and the rule stands.

Maybe if they were on the same team or had the same coach, I’d could understand the decision, but when a completely unrelated competitor decides to give her bike to another to complete the race, any sensible person would let them finish.

But it’s not the rule that bothers me, it’s the fact that officials waited until she was almost done with the run to completely pull her out of the race – it’s not like this is some false start in a swim meet - it’s 140.6 miles. What a shame.

52

Racers are not considered outside assistance.

Can you quote the rule that clarifies this? 3.4d doesn’t say ‘outside’ assistance, it says ‘unauthorized’ assistance and pretty clearly means anyone not a race official.

**Article 3.4d. Unauthorized Assistance. **
“No participant shall accept from any person (other than a race official) physical assistance in any form, including food, drink, equipment, support, pacing, a replacement bicycle or bicycle parts, unless an express exception has been granted and approved, in writing, by USA Triathlon. The receipt of information regarding the progress, split times, or location of other competitors on the race course shall not be considered the acceptance of unauthorized assistance. Any violation of this section shall result in a variable time penalty.”

I have been at race meetings where this was asked of the Head USAT Official and told repeated times that other racers considered part of the course.

You will also note that a variable time penalty is the remedy for this violation, and not a DQ, which would be what the assesment is for 5.2

Now whether Heather would have been assessed a 4 minute penalty is she received a bike part would be a completely different matter.

Again, this is something the USAT needs to be hammered on for COMPLETE clarification as to what is and is not a penalty, because I have been at race meeting where other racers are considered part of the course.

But it doesn’t say ‘part of the course’. It says ‘no person other than a race official’.

Other racers may well be part of the course but they clearly are not race officials and the text above is fairly specific that just being ‘part of the course’ isn’t good enough, the person has to be a race official.

53

I would suggest reading her blog…

54

it wasn’t the outside assistance that DQd her. It was ‘leaving’ her bike on the course after the swap.

55

I would suggest reading her blog…

I just read it. Seems like she accepts that the officials were enforcing the rules as they’re written. Whether or not these rules SHOULD be written as they are… I guess that’s a debate that we can have. But it doesn’t sound like any of the officials did anything except their jobs and they were clearly in the right in how they enforced the rules.

People keep saying ‘outside assistance’ but those words aren’t actually in any of the quoted rule sections I’ve seen.

56

That’s because she wasn’t hit for outside assistance. She was hit for abandoning her bike.

Someone made a good point about why that rule exists. So you can’t switch bikes with someone (aka your own personal domestique) midway through the ride. This stops people from maybe using a road bike on really technical sections and a TT on the flat part and whatnot.

57

That’s because she wasn’t hit for outside assistance. She was hit for abandoning her bike.

Someone made a good point about why that rule exists. So you can’t switch bikes with someone (aka your own personal domestique) midway through the ride. This stops people from maybe using a road bike on really technical sections and a TT on the flat part and whatnot.

Yeah, I can think of a few reasons the rule would exist.

I think it’s a bit dumb to equate this with Chrissie’s co2 incident - there’s a big difference between getting a co2 on the course and getting a whole new bike.

58

That’s because she wasn’t hit for outside assistance. She was hit for abandoning her bike.

Someone made a good point about why that rule exists. So you can’t switch bikes with someone (aka your own personal domestique) midway through the ride. This stops people from maybe using a road bike on really technical sections and a TT on the flat part and whatnot.

Let’s presume that this scenario was actually played out…

Rider A goes hard on their TT bike for 80 flat miles till the technical stages.
Rider B swaps bikes with Rider A for a better climb/descent whatever.

But wait… how long does rider A wait for Rider B to show up? Is there really an advantage? I mean in order for Rider B to be at the same place at the same time to actually provide some advantage, they would have to swim just as fast, and ride pretty close to as fast. Doesn’t seem like much of an advantage if Rider A has to sit and wait 20 minutes for the road bike to show up.

I call bullshit for any such scenarios. The only thing it can offer is a scenario like today, where a racer in trouble, is given an opportunity to finish by a fellow racer.

59

So many loopholes in this rule so it’s even more frustrating that officials decided to negate the great sportsmanship shown by Christie. What if Christie had “sold” Heather her bike (with a gel, whatever) and Heather had done the same… now they are finishing the course on their respective bikes and the rule stands.

Maybe if they were on the same team or had the same coach, I’d could understand the decision, but when a completely unrelated competitor decides to give her bike to another to complete the race, any sensible person would let them finish.

But it’s not the rule that bothers me, it’s the fact that officials waited until she was almost done with the run to completely pull her out of the race – it’s not like this is some false start in a swim meet - it’s 140.6 miles. What a shame.

But how are officials to know you didn’t bring 3 friends with the agreement that if you have a bike failure theyre giving up the equipment? The forward progress rule is a good one to both prevent usage of domestiques and stop people from just leaving a broken bike on the side of the road. Ive personally carried my bike the last 1/2 mile to finish a sprint tri bike when I double flatted (after riding on it for another mile before that), because of rule 5.2.

60

So many loopholes in this rule so it’s even more frustrating that officials decided to negate the great sportsmanship shown by Christie. What if Christie had “sold” Heather her bike (with a gel, whatever) and Heather had done the same… now they are finishing the course on their respective bikes and the rule stands.

Maybe if they were on the same team or had the same coach, I’d could understand the decision, but when a completely unrelated competitor decides to give her bike to another to complete the race, any sensible person would let them finish.

But it’s not the rule that bothers me, it’s the fact that officials waited until she was almost done with the run to completely pull her out of the race – it’s not like this is some false start in a swim meet - it’s 140.6 miles. What a shame.

But how are officials to know you didn’t bring 3 friends with the agreement that if you have a bike failure theyre giving up the equipment? The forward progress rule is a good one to both prevent usage of domestiques and stop people from just leaving a broken bike on the side of the road. Ive personally carried my bike the last 1/2 mile to finish a sprint tri bike when I double flatted (after riding on it for another mile before that), because of rule 5.2.

Yep,the way people are these days could you just imagine the amount of “team vehicles” that friend or club members would be driving all over the course handing out stuff to their athletes…

My two cents worth is that, the rules are the rules so deal with them or get together with all the other pros and have them changed…Imagine if every athlete just ignored the officials instructions on course.