Pro athletes and amateur ones already have 2 different sets of rules, it only brings further confusion to include amateurs to this discussion which pertains to a pro athlete.
Slightly varied nuances, but the big ticket aspects of what makes any sport a sport are the same at amateur and pro level. No point arguing that, because of course you will always be able to pick differences but everyone knows what is a triathlon or soccer or swimming at any level. Most major penalties in any given sport are the same infraction. You can slice and dice fine nuances that are slightly different but the big ticket items on any sport are the same at all levels, or you donât have a sport in the first place. However you want to cut it, the way the sport is defined today, if you get a penalty on course and donât serve it and are DQâd that is not a finished race. Its not really about the distinction between amateur and pro, its what is the universal framework all participants race under. If you donât have the amateur version of the sport by definition there is no pro sport (just because there is no top of the pyramid to call pro)
nobody would argue that not even ironman as they have dqued him , you were the only one to dispute that as initially you wanted him to be in the results and actually change the framework of the sport ⌠oh the irony.
no amateur has to validate a slot they have earned the only reason a pro has to validate the slot for marketing reasons and ironman deems that sam did fullfill the marketing purposes.
** we agree what you really want is that the validation rule gets changed into either**
world champ pro podium champs have to do one ironman race to promote the brand full stop .
or make a really clear rule what validation exactly means in how you have to finish the race and how competitive.
**what can not be is the phrase validation is at the sole discretion of ironman. **
but its total bs that any of this has anything to do with the universal frame work of triathlon its only part of the pro framework
he is dqued from the race got no price money his protest was denied .
so the frame work has not changed at all .
OK now you are inventing what I said. Better to stick to what you said. If you look at the race day thread, I said, âI hope it is a drafting penalty and not center line and he served it at the next tentâ. That was right during the race. I also said I have zero sympathy for Sam leaving his validation to the last moment.
On the rest we agree, the only difference is maybe a divergence on how a race presence with a non finish is used to qualify for their championship. I think the majority here would be happier if they did not bend their definition of what constitutes a completed race for the purpose of qualification (pro or otherwise, because legacy people have to validate with a completed race). In any case, I would imagine if you and I had a chance on a live dialog we would 99% align with each other.
I just donââŹâ˘t agree with this. The rules are clear on this. You have to finish the race. Sam did not finish the race.
If thereâd been a poll, prior to this race, here on ST or anywhere else in the triathlon community, pointing out the wording in the validation clause and asking if anyone DQd after crossing the line counts as a finisher, the results would have been overwhelmingly âNo.â (agreeing with the post above and most here I think). Heck, even IM would probably have agreed with that, if asked, because probably the legacy program has a similar wording. The fact they had to add all that extra justification about spirit of the event and all that just means they donât really believe their new version of âfinishingâ either.
Sam should be in Kona. IM, just give him a wildcard, using the same justification you gave for giving him the validation and I doubt thereâd be many would argue with that.
If you think IM would actually credit a finish to a legacy candidate who crossed the finish but was dqââŹâ˘d, you are naive.
And thatââŹâ˘s really where my issue is. They are inconsistent at enforcing their rules and bend or interpret them differently to fit the outcome they want.
If you think IM would actually credit a finish to a legacy candidate who crossed the finish but was dqââŹâ˘d, you are naive.
Thatâs the point I was trying (perhaps not very well) to make. Nobody, even IM, would have claimed that a DQ was a finisher by any definition. IM know that, hence their added âjustificationâ around Samâs attitude etc.
And thatââŹâ˘s really where my issue is. They are inconsistent at enforcing their rules and bend or interpret them differently to fit the outcome they want.
Yes. Itâll be interesting to see if they change the wording in future years to make it clearer and tighter, or if they leave it as it is because that allows them to interpret it how they want if it suits them.
Interestingly (YMMV) IRONMAN have changed the validation rules to ensure that the current IMWC champion can, if they wish, race the next IMWC without racing an IM to validate.
Having said that I expect both Philipp and Lange will race at least one IM (though I guess Philipp may ignore IMs, just go and race Roth (as 4 months ago) as her single full distance before Kona. Assume she will sign up to T100 again so Roth would be easy to fit in.
OK this is clear cut and I like it. So Patrick Lange right now has a 5 year window from his last race where he can race Kona as a pro with validation for 2026-2029 and for 2025, he need not validate because he is defending champ. That seems fairâŚyou can ride in on last yearâs prowess, but two years from now if youâre out of shape, weâre making you validate and prove you can do an IM again
OK thanks for that clarification. I think that is excellentâŚathlete has to give something to get something.
For 70.3 Worlds champion, I assume they still have to validate with 2x70.3 or 1xIronman? Asking because I assume this is Taylor Knibbâs plan (win Taupo and do two halfsâŚshe could have easily done two halfs before Nice, but I think she was hoping to win the Olympic gold and use that to get an invite to Nice)
I read it wrong, hence the deleted post. Itâs only if you are already a 5 year exemption holder and if you win in 2024 that you can choose to burn your 5 years so you donât have to validate. E.g. applies only if Gustav, Blu or Laidlow or Sodaro, LCB, or Haug had won while they had an active 5 year exemption.
Now winner just gets in next year is the new policy.
Read the policy, Dev (itâs not that long).
The 70.3WC winner no longer gets an IMWC slot.
Why would Knibb want to not race a full distance next year? She desperately needs the experience.
Her challenge will be to race the T100 Tour and earn a IMWC slot (by racing an IM).
Anyway, the two 70.3s option has been removed (was there for Knibb: she didnât take it; was there for Philipp: she did and then raced Roth)
IM have also tightened up the âLaidlowâ exemption fallacy validation finish by saying:
"successful completion of . . . [an] Exemption holder must competitively race and be an official finisher in . . a Validation Race. "
Why did I ask you to post the details rather than reading myself?
Here is why
If we tell everyone to go read something off the forum, that does not create a discussion. We go away and likely donât come back.
Rather, when one person has already gone and read it, if that person puts a short executive summary inside the forum it creates a discussion. I know I can go read it on another website, but 1000 of us going to another website does not help ST.
Best scenario whenever someone reads something to give the exec summary to everyone else (and of course this will have the original readerâs biases, so anyone who is more interested goes to the other website to fact check).
Yes, I can go read it, but I would rather than 1000 other people on ST read the summary on ST!!!
Yeah so going forward, their is no longer a 5 year exemption for the world champion. They just automatically get in without having to validate the following year. But the 2019-2023 champions are grandfathered in until their 5 years are up or if they win the WC, they can choose not to validate the following year and still get in but their 5 year window officially closes.
Back on topic, so the 70.3 Worldâs winner has to qualify the normal way, versus just validate so Knibb will have to race an Ironman sufficiently well to qualify, meaning she canât totally stroll thru things. That impacts her T100 schedule (see what happned to Lucy this year for example).
What is the earliest pro series IM that Knibb can win a slot at in 2025? That may be Texas?
Port Elizabeth on 30 March (if she chooses to concern herself with IM Pro Series), otherwise any IM (eg Cozumel or IMNZ)
Iâd be dead surprised if Knibb tries to do a Matthews. She needs to get IM experience.
Clearly an athlete can do an IM to KQ, the IMWC, a 70.3 to qualify, and the 70.3WC. Thatâs four events. So for a successful IM Pro Series campaign one more IM is required. Now shoehorn that lot into a T100 Tour with more events (ie at least 8 in 2025).
Trouble with IMSA is that itâs real close to T100 Singers and Knibb is sensible. As you say: impacts her T100 Tour races (but that comes down to how many scores to count).
Date
IM/70.3
Event
24-Mar
70.3
IRONMAN 70.3 Geelong
30-Mar
IM
IRONMAN South Africa African Championship
05-Apr
70.3
IRONMAN 70.3 Oceanside
12-Apr
T100
Singapore
26-Apr
IM
IRONMAN Texas North American Championship
04-May
70.3
IRONMAN 70.3 Venice-Jesolo
10-May
70.3
IRONMAN 70.3 St. George North American Championship
IMWC 2025
Champion exemption (with no validation required: so Philipp and Lange can go and race Roth!!)
No exemption for 70.3 winner nor podium (so Matthews, Ditlev, RvB and whoever win Taupo have to earn a IMWCQ in the same way as other athletes).