This was a topic from a few weeks back… Here´s a short background and an update on how to sign up…
The petition, as well as future development, can be found at http://www.triathlon-professionals.org
In light of the recent decision by ITU to shorten the “long-distance” champs and races from current 4-120-30, to 3-80-20 a few of us at dinner the night before ITU Worlds LD in Canberra, seemed to agree that was a very bad decision and maybe in stark contrast to what we, the athletes think. So I took it upon me to write a petition and the following day, at the pre-race briefing I passed it around and yes, just about all elites did in fact agree and sign.
Why does ITU want this change? It´s not to challenge the 70.3, the prizemoney is far too much behind for that, but rather to accomodate the shortcourse guys who wants to add some longer races. Any World Cup-triathlete can race double olympic but for the 4-120-30 it requires very specific training. Same goes for the IM-guy, he´ll need to step his game and go a lot faster to be competitive at the 4-120-30. Also, Les McDonald has allegedly stated that the longdistance needs to be shorter so that it is more spectator- and mediafriendly. That statement is ludicrous… If 4-120-30 is too long to make an interesting story on, I wonder why Hawaii´s 90 min TV-special is so widely popular and awardwinning? *This is like having the International Track&Field Union skip the marathon just because it´s “too long and hard to follow” and just go with the 10 k track. And FINA is doing just the opposite in swimming. They are ADDING a much longer event with their openwater 10 k that has now even gained olympic recognition. *
It´s not like we don´t already have enough long triathlons in the world, we do. It´s just that the ITU is a very powerful organisation and the overruling head of world-wide triathlon, recognized by the IOC, the national sports federations and the national tri-feds. When they act in a way that alienates a large part of triathlon and triathletes and disregarding the opinions of the athletes themselves, that´s very serious in my view.
***So we have a number of votes from Canberra, among them the winners Torbjörn Sindballe and Bella Comerford, and we´re now continuing to collect votes through the athletes website *http://www.triathlon-professionals.org
**We´ll later forward all these names to the ITU. ***Anyone agreeing with this petition may e-mail me at *colting@telia.com
I wonder why Hawaii´s 90 min TV-special is so widely popular and awardwinning?*
good luck jonas, fyi - in the us i think you’d find that the 90 min hawaii tv show is not a very big deal in terms of a business or a media event. it is shown at the worst time and has no major advertisers…from what i hear it is a major effort for wtc as a brand-building thing (as in ‘infomercial’ for the wtc) and not a money maker…in any discussion like this, it is a always a good idea to figure out what the other side’s real motives and thinking are…what is the reason that they are shortening the distances? it probaly is not because they are eveil and mean, they probably have some rationale to it…think from their side of the arguement and see what you come up with, then convince them that their reasoning is wrong…what is the difference between the two in terms of athlete who will win? cost of running the two distances? attraction to the spectatiors and sponsors? olympic potential? overlap between distances? take yourself and your own desires out of the equation and see what you come up with…
Is this a petition against the ITU or against its decision to shorten the LD event?
I would agree with your contention (body of the post) - as a matter of fact, I even find 4-120-30 a bit short and would rather see a 6-160-40 event - but it’s difficult to get past the title of your petition. The first time you posted, I assumed a typo… but since you are now using the same subject line, I am now understanding that it’s deliberate.
Are you trying to change their mind or to antagonize them?
Just out of interest is the ITU’s feeling that by shortening the distance more short coursers will have a go at it ? Do you feel this would happen ? I have never raced over this particular distance but what would you think would help to promote better exposure of this distance in light of the utter domination of Ironman.
Killing Nice Triathlon probably was the beginning of the end of this distance and was undoubtably a mistake.
Also, Les McDonald has allegedly stated that the longdistance needs to be shorter so that it is more spectator- and mediafriendly. That statement is ludicrous… If 4-120-30 is too long to make an interesting story on, I wonder why Hawaii´s 90 min TV-special is so widely popular and awardwinning?This is like having the International Track&Field Union skip the marathon just because it´s “too long and hard to follow” and just go with the 10 k track
**
I think a lot of it has to do with the above…
And that the ITU feels that they have lost the battle over longdistance (if there was ever one) to WTC, which is a very odd rationale by the governing body of the sport that supposedly should embrace and work to develop all distances of the sport.
Like above, what if T&F Union only started focusing on the sprints and middle distance?
I think the Olympic focus of the ITU os overshadowing everything else for them. Sadly…
Well, that may just be a matter of semantics but I´m protesting against the distances of these races, which is decided and run by the ITU…
Hello Jonas,
Is this a petition against the ITU or against its decision to shorten the LD event?
I would agree with your contention (body of the post) - as a matter of fact, I even find 4-120-30 a bit short and would rather see a 6-160-40 event - but it’s difficult to get past the title of your petition. The first time you posted, I assumed a typo… but since you are now using the same subject line, I am now understanding that it’s deliberate.
Are you trying to change their mind or to antagonize them?
Well. I, for one, would be willing to sign a petition asking for the maintain of the 4-120-30 distance or creation of another well balanced event whose winner would finish in 6:00 or more (I mentioned the “quadruple Olympic” distance in my earlier post): so maybe a short course (SC), a long course (double SC), and extra long course (triple SC or more) format. But if you keep the title of your petition this broad (i.e. “against ITU” in general)… I am afraid I won’t sign.
As for the rationale for 3-60-20, my educated guess is that ITU would like: 1/ to be able to set up a long course circuit with races every other weeks (not unlike the current SC race series) which long races procludes, 2/ to have a shot at introducing another distance for triathlon at the Olympics.
Resolution 2:
Whereas the ITU Competition Rules do not clearly define the distances for the ITU Long Distance Triathlon;
And whereas all disciplines of an International Federation must be clearly defined;
Therefore be it resolved, that the ITU Long Distance Championships will henceforth be double the ITU Olympic Distance event i.e., 3 km swim x 80 km cycle x 20 km run.
Discussion:
a) Bill Walker, AUS, outlined the health and safety concerns associated with Long Distance racing, as published in a paper by Dr. Diane Robinson, AUS
b) Loreen Barnett, CAN, added that we needed to be technically clear about the type of event that falls within the jurisdiction of ITU. She also stated that we need a distinct marketing strategy to distinguish ITU Long Distance events from those of other world governing bodies and private companies.
c) Rob Barel, NED, expressed concern that we may be giving away a large group of athletes who only want to race ultra-long events. He also stated that the existing double and triple Olympic distances is a good mix.
d) Bill Walker, AUS, stated that we need to ensure that our athletes are not risking injuries and related health problems in events which are too long.
e) Les McDonald, CAN, stated that Long Distance is too long for television and spectators and the time needs to be reduced.
f) Rob Barel, NED asked that the 2008 World Championship in Almere be allowed to stay at the Triple Olympic distance
Resolution carried: 29-10
First of all; what´s with the “make sure our triathlons aren´t too long and hard…”? Dangers with racing longdistances?? That´s such a f-n hypocricy and really ironic if you ask me if you then compare to what I feel is a REAL healththreat; their massive World Cup schedule and Oly qualification that sometimes forces athletes to race four-five consecutive weekends on as many continents…
And what about Les McDonald? Talk about being removed from reality?
I´m happy to see Rob Barel sticking up for the idea of a “true” LD event
Raised troponin T and echocardiographic abnormalities after prolonged strenuous exercise—the Australian Ironman Triathlon
L Tulloh, D Robinson, A Patel, A Ware, C Prendergast, D Sullivan and L Pressley
The study states “The clinical significance and long term sequelae of such damage remains to be determined.” i.e. they don’t know if there are any long term effects or if those effects are bad for you, so this study should not have been cited as a reason to change the long course format.
And what about Les McDonald? Talk about being removed from reality?
It appears that his reality only consists of Olympic distance triathlon, and the 50 (if that) athletes that compete at the top level. He isn’t concerned with any other events, and doesn’t want any of ‘his’ athletes getting hurt or tired from doing a different event. I doubt he really wants any of ‘his’ athletes competing at any other events, period.
He just wants the thousands of other (AG) triathletes in the world to just give him money to run ‘his’ events with ‘his’ athletes.
A different Dan chiming in here … I would suspect he means it has a good chance of becoming quite popular, if the ITU decides to really sell it. As what usually happens is that most of the people to speak-up are the ones against the issue. I bet there is a silent majority that likes this change - me being one of them. Half-IM (or 70.3) is my favourite distance, but this is much better because the 1.9k swim is way too short. The ITU events I’ve attended are generally very well organized, which I think will lead these events to be comparable to what one gets at a WTC event (but hopefully cheaper). ITU can’t compete with Ironman so they need a different product. This is only going to serve to give us more options. Why have the old long distance format when most of the top athletes were choosing to race Hawaii instead? As already stated, this will easily allow the short course guys to move up or the long course guys to move down. If they can manage to put enough money in the pot, this could be a very successful distance.
Anyways, I’m hoping this works and if they put an event in my area, I look forward to signing up!
If ITU treated their LD-events with equal attention, and gave it as much publicity, prizemoney and focus, as their World Cup-races you would a huge amount of pro´s racing these events instead of IM´s. Titles doesn´t mean anything if they´re not accompanied by prizemoney and ITU is really trying their “best” to kill its own LD-events by offering very low prizemoney…
In Europe anyway, a World or European title is very prestigous since it´s understood all across sports. A lot of normal people never heard of Ironman or even triathlon but everyone understands the concept of World Championships.
And ITU has the only official World Champs, that´s why it´s very important to have them run the right distances instead of some bogus half-assed long-distance.
And for what´s its worth, I want the ITU to be a strong organisation and to keep running these events. Otherwise we might just be like boxing and have whatever random event or organisation to have “World Champs” left and right. I just wish the ITU to ask the athletes before deciding…
And it doesn´t have to be about Hawaii or not. Obviously HIM has it´s followers and as the crownjewel of the sport it will always be legendary BUT it´s really a saunafest held on the same place every year, whereas a true World Champs is run on different courses/venues every year and is also organized by the highest officiating organ of the sport, being ITU in this case.
Like I´ve written before; the ITU is making a very dubious choice by basically only focusing on a very small aspect of the sport of triathlon, namely the World Cup drafting races. Doesn´t that seem odd to do by such an organisation?
I have nothing against the ITU promoting the O2 distance and trying to attract people to move up from Oly.
However, I think the distances are too similar to the 70.3 series (and the plethora of other middle distances races) that the ITU will have difficulty in carving its own niche in the market. I don’t think O2 really adds anything new to the mix (ok its a slightly longer swim than a 70.3, but the races will take pretty much the same time to complete).
I hope I’m wrong, but I think O2 series will end up as a poor relation to the 70.3 series.
My main beef is not the addition of O2 races or even an O2 world championship, but the removal of the traditional “Long Course” format - this was sufficiently different in distance to IronMan and halfIM/70.3 that it presented a different set of challenges to the athlete. I think properly backed by the ITU it could have carved its own niche.
I don’t think this move will introduce more choice, more likely existing middle or long distance races will switch to the new format, leaving those of us who want something longer no choice but to race non ITU backed races (be they IronMan or other irondistance races).