New USAT Rule for Blind Athletes

Triathlon Forum
1

I wanted to create a forum with regards to the new adopted rules change for visually impaired athletes. Just recently at Wildflower, World Champion blind athlete Aaron Scheidies http://www.cdifferentwithaaron.com was disqualified after he completed the course in 4:47 because he “didn’t wear black out glasses” per this new adopted rule change which is listed below. For those of you who don’t know, Aaron won his world championship title in Clearwater last year while finishing in a blazing 4:18.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - On March 2, the USA Triathlon Board of Directors adopted an advancement of the paratriathlon rule modifications. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) first suggested these changes in late 2009 in preparation for the International Triathlon Union’s (ITU) application for inclusion in the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
In consultation with ITU and its own paratriathlon committee chaired by Grant Darby of Canada, the USA Paratriathlon Committee submitted these rules changes to the board. Although they are in basic agreement with all the principles and intent of the international standards, the USAT version has been modified to make it easier to understand and implement by U.S. athletes, officials and race directors.

All TRI 6 (visually impaired) competitors shall wear blackout glasses on the run portion.

It is of my opinion that this actually places not only the blind athletes in a dangerous position out on the course, but it also endangers the other 2,000 participants who are racing. The few visually impaired athletes who do compete in the sport, usually have such limited light perception (15% or so), and therefore, when an official requires them to compete in darkness to “level the playing field,” this creates a disorientation within the brain causing an unsafe environment.

There are many, many different levels of visual impairments, and the only way we are to grow as a sport is to accept these different levels, and allow the athletes to compete within their respective levels, such USA Swimming, as well as USA Track and field, where the athletes compete based upon visual acuity. B1, B2, and B3.

As an example, if an athlete has a leg impairment, such as a prosthetic leg which they use on a daily basis to walk around, run, train, etc, the rules committee would not require them to compete in an event in a racing wheelchair so as to “level the playing field” because the other leg impaired athletes who are confined to wheelchairs have to compete in one. The rules committee creates separate categories for the level of impairment, and allows the athletes to compete against others in their class.

These visually impaired athletes are already out there showing the world what truly is possible, yet by “increasing the disability” and “further blinding the athlete to an unsafe position” is not the answer.

Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated so we can forward the information to the proper channels.

Thanks

Matt Miller
C Different Foundation********

2

How about a big WTF for USAT! I call “Shenanigans”

I guess all athletes should also be at exactly the same weight so that one doesn’t have an advantage over another. Imagine how that would go.
“Joe here is your 80lb pack that you have to wear to make your body weight 220”

3

As long as USAT provides the glasses and they are light-weight Rudy Project’s with interchangeable lenses (to match your shoe-laces, of course) I think everyone will be happy…oh, and they shall be made of carbon too!

SERIOUSLY!?!?!? I’m already not happy with USAT after the fiasco that was Collegiate Nationals and this just makes it worse.

4

“Blind” means a lot of different things to different people. Someone who is “a little blind” has a big advantage over someone is completely blind. The real question here is should USAT make special categories B1/B2/B3, etc instead of an across-the-board requirement to wear black out glasses? How many competitors would each division draw at a typical event?

Do these blind athletes have a guide or must they race like every other competitor? Either way, blind athletes racing is pretty incredible in my book. But I think there definitely needs to be a level playing field amongst competitors.

5

I agree with Matt. As a guide for a visually impaired triathlete and runner, I am shocked that the USAT would make such a sweeping reform, seemingly without regard to the safety of the athletes they are there to protect! (Isn’t that why we all get our little USAT membership cards every race season? To ensure that the event is in compliance with standards in place to PROTECT the athletes?!?) While I understand the desire the USAT has to try and create a fair race environment, I fail to see how further handicapping visually impaired athletes will do so? As Matt mentioned, the majority of visually impaired triathletes have at least some vision, and therefore altering the limited vision they do possess would further inhibit them, making it extremely unsafe for not only the athletes, but the guides and other athletes as well.

I would love to know how many visually impaired triathletes sit on the advisory board at USAT. Were they consulted before the rule change was implemented? Was there any ‘beta testing’ to see the effect this may have on visually impaired athlete with partial vision?

My haunting suspicion is no.

6

Actually had a fun experience running into Aaron at Wildflower 2008 (literally). He came off the bike 1 minute behind me in the olympic race and proceeded to slowly catch up. Could hear him and his guide getting closer and louder throughout the run and couldn’t figure out why two guys were running so close and talking so much about slight bends in the road. Also couldn’t figure out why they had tied a rope between them

Coming down the steep hill at mile 5-6 they caught up. One went left, one went right, and it turned into a comical scene of me getting tangled in the rope.

Point is, black glasses or not, he can’t see so let his awesome 4:47 in the half stand.

7

I think the problem is that they only want one class in the paralympics instead of 3. I do not see why they cannot do a factor system like downhill skiing and have one medal for the B1, B2 and B3. I am assuming that the numbers will be pretty small.

What are the current rules? Tethered swim, tandem bike, and tethered run? with one person or three different people?

8

Nick- I’ve guided blind runners and triathletes with both partial vision and near complete vision loss, and I can tell you that in my experience, there was no distinguishable advantage between athletes, because the athlete with almost total vision loss has adapted to that specific degree of vision loss. Altering the degree of vision of the athletes to try and “level the playing field” becomes unsafe. It is like similar to having every triathlete in the Clydesdale division don a backpack to weigh at least 250 lbs, to “level the playing field”. Currently the 205 lb Clydesdale divison triathlete races alongside the 250 lb triathlete. (Most Clydesdales triathletes, I assume, are not in it for the win, they are in it because they just want to compete- just like most VI triathletes)

It doesn’t make much sense to hand out backpacks at T2 for the Clydesdales, does it.

As you said, if the USAT is REALLY looking to level the playing field, it needs to break down the VI down into sub categories. If it isn’t willing to do so, then they need to just back off and let the athletes race. Most VI athletes race not for the win, but for the experience. And when that experience is hampered by this type ill-thought out rule change, my estimation is that many VI athletes will stick to other sports without restrictions…

9

I don’t like the rules about my skinsuit, since I bought one at the end of last year and haven’t worn it yet. I don’t understand the pro’s rule changes. But this one makes me angry.

10

Well, said and I mostly agree with you. And, SO COOL of you to have been a guide!

However, a 280lb Clydesdale can become 205lb if they so wished. A totally blind athlete can never become partially blind and gain that advantage.

It’s a tough call for USAT I’m sure, as either solution has drawbacks. A level playing field seems fair. Is there a more fair way of doing this than forcing black out glasses? Possibly. But I think USAT is drawing the line here in VI category and saying “Blind = Blind”.

11

If this is basically what the ITU rule is, then USAT did what they had to do. Then the anger should be directed at the ITU, not USAT.

12

unbelievable…I’ve guided Aaron a few times and I can tell you that he would be flat on his ass if he did not have a guide…he is one amazing athlete and person…don’t give into USAT Aaron!

13

Matt - did you contact Charlie Crawford regarding the safety as an issue? I think you have a great point.

Regarding the rule, dumb as it may be, if he didn’t wear the glasses then he should file a protest stating that he felt “unsafe” with them.

PM me or call me and I can guide you (no pun intended).

Bob
Kokua Multisports, LLC
http://kokuamultisports.blogspot.com

SRM Dealer

14

no dog in this fight but want to point out, these rules apply to all paratriathletes. not just blind athletes. thank itu and the push to get included in the olympics for global standardization of these rules. usat simply adopted the rules that apply in every country. if aaron is in a triathlon in another countrysanctioned by the national governing body he still would have been dq. how is usat at fault for aaron now knowing the rules? jus sayin.

15 
"If this is basically what the ITU rule is, then USAT did what they had to do.  Then the anger should be directed at the ITU, not USAT."

http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidedwardcampbell
Interesting logic. I sure wish you would apply it to your rule/policy concerns.

JR

16

How is this so? If I am making a mistake on the rules, just help me understand. You can give me a call at anytime, and we can talk.

17

Nick, I agree for the most part. The USAT or ITU is trying to say blind=blind, but that is simply not physiologically accurate. Further handicaping someone who is already exerting a superhuman effort just to compete is just going to cause more problems. As for the Clydesdales, the point is that many in the that division just want to compete and are not “in it to win it”. The same holds true for the VI athletes. But you make good points!

18

I am beyond disappointed, sickened if I can risk being blunt, in USAT’s choice to adopt this new rule. Personally, I’ve lost most of my vision due to Retnitis Pigmentosa, and have just recently embraced the sport of triathlon as an outlet to model for my children that one can still set ambitious goals in the face of adversity. This 3 prong sport is difficult for all, regardless of a disability. I greatly admire the accomplishments of those I’ve come to know who are both able bodied and totally blind. I did not enter this sport to compete with anyone. I wanted to challenge myself by participating in something completely new, and it has been a challenge, from learning to swim in open water tethered to a guide, to trusting others to steer the way on the tandem, to training for the challenging run transition. As someone with partial sight, I personally do not have the same mobility skill set as a totally blind person. In fact, when running in the dark with a guide, my balance and spatial orientation are very skewed. I don’t know how much training it would require to run safely with my vision entirely blackened out.

Readers of this may not realize this, but visually impaired participants are excluded from any awards or qualifying slots already. Even if I finished first in my age division, I would receive nothing. Presently, there isn’t even a way for a visually impaired or totally blind triathlete to qualify for world championship races in Clearwater or Kona. Even Aaron Scheidies, the world’s fastest paratriathlete must apply through a lottery system… a roll of the dice.

I originally assumed that this new ruling would only be relevant for paratriathlon world championship events. After all, in most cases triathlons don’t even have visually impaired participants. Why would a race director even care if a couple of visually impaired participants ran totally in the dark or not? We’re competing for no awards and no slots. That is made very clear. Well… I was wrong. Aaron has already received a DQ at Wildflower.

As for me, I guess I’ll have to decide to run totally in the black, disabled by the rule making authority, or to be stamped as a cheater after finishing the grueling event as I stand staring with my limited vision at the DQ on the results page alongside my 3 young daughters.

Furthermore, race directors reluctant to allow VI athletes to participate in their events (regrettably, this is true) could just require that all USAT Para rules are followed to the tea to discourage VI athletes from joining their event. In the presence of ignorance, they’ll have ammunition to exclude rather than include, and they’ll have WTC’s and USAT’s support!

This rule is unjust, unfair and prejudicial to guys like me who just want to participate in the sport with the abilities God has given me. USAT and WTC would not even think about telling other event participants that they would have to run in the dark or disable themselves otherwise.

This rule to “level the international playing field” has a trickle down impact into everyone’s home town, even those who will never participate in an international or world championship event.

Richard Hunter
B2 Retinitis Pigmentosa
Augusta 70.3 Ironman Finisher

19

“Readers of this may not realize this, but visually impaired participants are excluded from any awards or qualifying slots already. Even if I finished first in my age division, I would receive nothing.”

whoa. are you telling us that a visually impaired athlete who wants to race using the limited vision he or she has cannot receive an award in any division? is this both a USAT and a WTC rule? that is to say, you can’t be on the podium at WF, nor can you be on the podium at an IM race?

20

Again, why the finger pointing at wtc and usat? If I read the first post correctly, it stated the IPC recommended this change based on it sounded like what the ITU was doing. Is this not true? Why is not the focus on this anger pointed to the IPC? And if someone is really doing this sport just for themselves, really, is the DQ life or death?

I took all 6 of my extended family members to worlds last year. Because the ITU screwed up, rather than having all 6 of use complete the Aquathlon, 3 of them were not in the results at all. No DQ, no DNF, nothing. I ended up getting them included as DNF, which was only caused because the ITU screwed up. Life or death? Nah, we all had a great time and everyone exceeded their goals. After seeing how many rules are ignored, cheating, etc., one really does have to race for themselves.