I thought the whole basis of the legal system is “innocent until proven guilty”. Yes it looks suspicious. No she’s not proven guilty, and unless she comes forward with a confession, unless someone can prove (not mob majority, but actual physical proof) that she cheated, it has to stand. Not cool, but that’s the way life works.
The burden of proof is different between a criminal and civil judgement, this type of issue would fall squarely under civil. Think OJ Simpson, wasn’t convicted in criminal court but lost everything in civil court.
This isn’t even court. This is an organization that can set its own rules. She isn’t afforded any kind of protection outside what the organizations by-laws or other governing docs set. This is a voluntary activity and she submits to that.
I thought the whole basis of the legal system is “innocent until proven guilty”. Yes it looks suspicious. No she’s not proven guilty, and unless she comes forward with a confession, unless someone can prove (not mob majority, but actual physical proof) that she cheated, it has to stand. Not cool, but that’s the way life works.
The burden of proof is different between a criminal and civil judgement, this type of issue would fall squarely under civil. Think OJ Simpson, wasn’t convicted in criminal court but lost everything in civil court.
This isn’t even court. This is an organization that can set its own rules. She isn’t afforded any kind of protection outside what the organizations by-laws or other governing docs set. This is a voluntary activity and she submits to that.
Meh, I disagree slightly. She can bring a cause of action under some circumstances (e.g., the rules are against public policy, failure to follow their own procedure). I’m not saying any of those exist, but the rules are not hard and fast that she isn’t afforded any protection beyond those rules.
“AS was the only swimmer, professional or amateur to stay on-course during the race. All of the professional men and women followed swim leaders who took them off course, allowing AS to swim the course the fastest on the day. Had the professional men or women stayed on the correct course, it is likely their swim times would be much faster than AS.”
“AS was the only swimmer, professional or amateur to stay on-course during the race. All of the professional men and women followed swim leaders who took them off course, allowing AS to swim the course the fastest on the day. Had the professional men or women stayed on the correct course, it is likely their swim times would be much faster than AS.”
How was that?
IN 2016 at the Alcatraz Triathlon, 2008 Olympian Andrew Potts - generally regarded as the best and most experienced swimmer in the entire sport of Triathlon - swam off course and as a result exited the swim portion of the race with a significant deficit. In open water swimming a pack generally forms behind the “lead” swimmer. In this event the pack following Mr. Potts included Josh Amberger and Brian Fleishman - both also regarded top swimmers in the sport. The deficit between Mr. Potts pack and the fastest age grouper in the race was approximately 4 minutes upon exiting the swim. This was the 11th time Mr. Potts competed in this race. The previous 10 times Mr. Potts had the fastest swim time in the entire event. The conditions which lead to Mr. Potts swimming off course were similar to the conditions at Oklahoma - choppy and with a current.
Wasn’t the swim in a land locked lake? If so, I expect the current if any wouldn’t have remotely compared to the one folks have to deal with at the Alcatraz Triathlon.
I am with Kay on this one. I’ll even say based on the statistical evidence in this thread, the burden of proof should no longer be on the RD or any of the federations to prove further…It should be on AS to say here is my file or here is my swim. I actually swam this course. It is obvious she is wearing a GPS type watch, which very well should show that she swam the course
I know of a woman who claimed to run 2 minutes faster than Rinny at Chattanooga 70.3, 1:20:xx to Rinny’s 1:22:xx. She ran with a Garmin and claimed that her run was valid. RD obviously asked to see her Garmin to validate the result, but of course she deleted the file as soon as she finished - which you always do when you outrun the most pure runner in the sport. I know someone who ran with this person in college, she couldn’t run an 800 at the same pace she claimed to have run the half marathon.
They DQ’d her on the spot.
This is the same thing. Age grouper outperforms a professional at their most proficient leg while wearing a Garmin and can’t provide the file. Can’t prove you did the incredible, then you are out.
“AS was the only swimmer, professional or amateur to stay on-course during the race. All of the professional men and women followed swim leaders who took them off course, allowing AS to swim the course the fastest on the day. Had the professional men or women stayed on the correct course, it is likely their swim times would be much faster than AS.”
How was that?
Let’s see…based on the Garmin data that has been shared publicly, there were some swimmers who swam tight lines between and around the buoys. But, for the sake of your argument, let’s assume they were only 'slow" swimmers and all the fastest swimmers, including the pros, all swam further. The problem is still, however, that those Garmin files of the ‘tight course’ swimmers show that the shortest route around the course was at least 4.3km, or 300m longer than expected. Therefore even if AS had swum perfect lines (hard to do when you’re overtaking literally hundreds of swimmers) she would have had to have swum at a world class pool swimming pace, of which she has shown no ability to do based on past results. Ergo, it’s impossible that she completed the prescribed course.
“AS was the only swimmer, professional or amateur to stay on-course during the race. All of the professional men and women followed swim leaders who took them off course, allowing AS to swim the course the fastest on the day. Had the professional men or women stayed on the correct course, it is likely their swim times would be much faster than AS.”
How was that?
IN 2016 at the Alcatraz Triathlon, 2008 Olympian Andrew Potts - generally regarded as the best and most experienced swimmer in the entire sport of Triathlon - swam off course and as a result exited the swim portion of the race with a significant deficit. In open water swimming a pack generally forms behind the “lead” swimmer. In this event the pack following Mr. Potts included Josh Amberger and Brian Fleishman - both also regarded top swimmers in the sport. The deficit between Mr. Potts pack and the fastest age grouper in the race was approximately 4 minutes upon exiting the swim. This was the 11th time Mr. Potts competed in this race. The previous 10 times Mr. Potts had the fastest swim time in the entire event. The conditions which lead to Mr. Potts swimming off course were similar to the conditions at Oklahoma - choppy and with a current.
No, the conditions in SF Bay are nothing like a land-locked lake. The currents are significant in the former while there could only have been a surface chop on the lake. But if you really want to imply that AS was the only fast-ish swimmer to swim the prescribed course, see my previous post above.
I’m against in this. She was DQ’d. She appealed and was given an right to show she did the course. She apparently talked about how fast a swimmer is and used “eye witness” account to prove her case. She followed ITU’s rules. All ITU had was a fast split. They didn’t have a normal lap and then 20 min improvement. They didn’t have eye witness say she turned at X swim boy instead of Y swim boy.
So if an athlete is going to appeal and the race has no real “evidence” to show she cheated, what do we want to happen? Well want the athlete to come truthful, but if she’s going to lie and say she did it, and the race can’t prove she didn’t do it, then we are stuck.
So then ITU tells Tri NZ, we are washing our hands of this. If they want to pursue more, cool do it on their dime. So if you are Tri NZ, you have to now spend time and energy on this BS case when you have to essentially make the case. You don’t have any way to show she turned early, other than a fast split. So then do you want to go on just that? This is a pain in the ass situation where it’s like all parties have their own agendas and don’t seem to want to get on same page.
I get what you are saying, and I’ll only add one more piece to the counterpoint-
Integrity in the sport matters to a bigger picture than this one racer. Publicly going through these hoops this time may encourage people in this position to do the right thing in the future and DQ themselves. I don’t think anyone is arguing that she swam the whole course, just about what level of proof is needed to take action.
And as much as I try to avoid slippery slope arguments, I gotta dive right into this one and say I am not comfortable with the sport letting this go if they have any power to reconcile the situation.
So if an athlete is going to appeal and the race has no real “evidence” to show she cheated, what do we want to happen? Well want the athlete to come truthful, but if she’s going to lie and say she did it, and the race can’t prove she didn’t do it, then we are stuck.
I think that the problem here is that she was DQ’d and then reinstated - so obviously the RD felt that there was reasonable grounds for the DQ.
The bigger problem now is how was the DQ reinstated and the lack of transparency involved in that reinstatement. If she provided evidence to the RD - what was the evidence she provided? I understand that the RD is likely in no place to then tell us what specific evidence was provided - but the bigger picture is what types of evidence is allowed to overturn a DQ on the spot.
It’s solved fairly easily: Put in a new rule that says something like “competitors who have been DQ’d on suspicion of course cutting may provide the following types of evidence as grounds for reinstatement.” and then list the types of evidence. This may likely be just a Garmin file on the spot, since previous times open up the possibility of multiple course cheating. (and if you’re not wearing a Garmin, then just don’t cut the course)
My point is that if there is no specific evidence of cheating, then yes, it is difficult to then apply a DQ. But once the DQ has been issued, it should then be incumbent upon the athlete to prove otherwise.
And we aren’t going to hear from ITU, because they basically have their head between their tail. It’s what happens when you piggy back off a race and just put “world championships” tag to it. You put your eggs in a basket hoping the race did everything it can to self check athletes…Nope.
So when there is no timing checks, etc., you pretty much don’t have a leg to stand on to go after an athlete in the event they start appealing. ITU can’t get it’s ducks in a row, because it has no ducks to sort. She does. So thus, ITU has gone dark on the matter, “what matter, we dealt with it”.
I’m against in this. She was DQ’d. She appealed and was given an right to show she did the course. She apparently talked about how fast a swimmer is and used “eye witness” account to prove her case. She followed ITU’s rules. All ITU had was a fast split. They didn’t have a normal lap and then 20 min improvement. They didn’t have eye witness say she turned at X swim boy instead of Y swim boy.
So if an athlete is going to appeal and the race has no real “evidence” to show she cheated, what do we want to happen? Well want the athlete to come truthful, but if she’s going to lie and say she did it, and the race can’t prove she didn’t do it, then we are stuck.
So then ITU tells Tri NZ, we are washing our hands of this. If they want to pursue more, cool do it on their dime. So if you are Tri NZ, you have to now spend time and energy on this BS case when you have to essentially make the case. You don’t have any way to show she turned early, other than a fast split. So then do you want to go on just that? This is a pain in the ass situation where it’s like all parties have their own agendas and don’t seem to want to get on same page.
Except this:
The ITU did not have all the information when they allowed her appeal. Specifically, they would very likely not have known that the course was excessively long. Therefore, her ‘theoretically possible’ 55 minute swim time (over **exactly **4km in perfect conditions) was, in fact, impossible. But the rules official/RD who allowed her appeal would not have known that at the time. (I still don’t believe she is capable of 55 minutes for 4km b/c her 21:54 1500m pool swim would be 58:24 extrapolated, assuming she could hold that pace for longer).
You may say, “well, the appeal was allowed at the time, so the result has to stand” but if I recall correctly, a similar thing happened with Julie Miller. She was DQ’d, then she appealed and was reinstated, and then later, after more information came to light, she was DQ’d again. I see no reason a similar process couldn’t take place here. The ITU now has more information: the course was at least 4.3km long, making it impossible for AS to swim a legitimate 55 minutes swim split.
The thing is, it was the athlete that proved she did the swim by ITU’s own appeals process. She followed every ITU step, paid the fee ($50), stated her case (however she did), used eye witness testimony (which is allowed and encouraged by ITU), to “prove” she did it.
ITU stands there listens to all the evidence she brings to the table. They look at all the evidence (or lack of evidence) to show why she was DQ’d, and within what I think 15 mins a judgement has to be made.
So she actually proved her case in front of ITU. And you bet emotions weigh in on this. Anger/frustration/scared/crying etc can weigh on officials. Add in the fact that it was a super choppy course, hell maybe she did do the course. And to top it off, ITU had no evidence from a single official/athlete/volunteer to show where she cut the course or how she cut the course.
This case is exactly what we want in an appeals process. Everything was done by the book. She basically got away with one because this race allowed her to get away with one.
We can all hope people race with integrity, but when officials are there to set a course and fair process, and they fail, shit like this happens.
Kay I absolutely agree, IF more info comes to light. But I’m going to wager there wont be any additional info. There were no time stamped lap 1 swim photos were there? There were no timing laps, there is currently nothing of note in this “investigation” that Tri NZ or ITU is going to suddenly “discover” to prove she cheated. Nothing new is going to be ever found. They aren’t going to have all these interviews from swimmers that conclude, “oh yeah i saw her pass me at the 8th turn boy, so no way she could have swam that”. That was the dumbest point in this whole thread (whoever brought that up), that somehow Tri NZ is doing swim interviews now to prove her swim split. Get out of here with that stupid idea.
It would certainly be good to find out what evidence she presented for her appeal. I suspect it may have been to remind the ITU that at their own race in the Edmonton Grand Final, she swam 19:44 for 1500m. Now it would be interesting to pull some Garmin files from that swim to see the actual distance, but if it was accurate then indeed it suggests 55 minutes for 4000m is possible. (But of course we now know it was at least 4300m, so actually not really in hindsight).
IF more info comes to light. But I’m going to wager there wont be any additional info.
Plenty more info has come to light. See posts #439, #536 (Oklahoma swim times of people with whom she has had comparable swim times in previous races) and #537.
I dont really care what she presented, because I think the process went exactly like it was designed too. As you stated, all these post race final DQ’s come when MORE evidence was presented at a later date.
But based on the reports, I think the athlete presented her past swim results that were “fast” and also used eye witness testimony from her coach to prove she can swim that pace. Race jury then listens or looks at why she was DQ’d. When there is a lack of evidence/photo/eye witness to say where/when she cheated, they go in and decide.
Based on all that was presented, I can certainly understand why they let the result stand. She could have done the swim, and with no evidence to prove she didn’t, result stand.
Now in all those other cases where athletes have been final DQ’d because of more evidence, that’s the problem in this case. There is no “other evidence” that is going to be uncovered.
So if anything we are just waiting for Tri NZ to uncover all these swimmers who saw her cheat somehow. That’s pretty much the only step left.
And it may all sound like I’m for this athlete. I’m not for this athlete as I am the process. ITU doesn’t have the evidence to prove she cheated. ITU better step up it’s game for athletes that compete in a world championship event, even if it’s only piggy backing off an event. So that is why I think we aren’t hearing anything from ITU. They sorta have the walk of shame attached to them on this. They did the best they could with what was presented in front of them.
And it may all sound like I’m for this athlete. I’m not for this athlete as I am the process. ITU doesn’t have the evidence to prove she cheated. ITU better step up it’s game for athletes that compete in a world championship event, even if it’s only piggy backing off an event. So that is why I think we aren’t hearing anything from ITU. They sorta have the walk of shame attached to them on this. They did the best they could with what was presented in front of them.
Did you read Posts #536 and #537? That is enough evidence to me… I wonder why #2, #3 and #4 are not raising hell with her results?
This will probaly be my last reply. If the only evidence to prove she cheated is past results between athletes and herself (she cant sustain whatever pace she did), it’s a fucked up situation. Maybe that will get her DQ’d,and maybe it wont. I can see why they are sitting on this, still because of the lack of actual evidence. And that’s pretty much why I’ve stated, ITU has a black eye from this as well, because of a lack of quality control. Let’s not forget that part of this.