Again, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, the athlete was trying to promote the endeavor (him doing UM) and thereby the sport at large.
The board could have looked at the bigger picture and said, “OK, we can’t let everyone create content from our platform without pre authorization and also create safety issues, so let’s figure out how to make the sport better, leveraging this situation”.
Getting a license to the content, and then reminding the world, that they have a rule whereby the filming needs to be pre approved will be enforced in the future, and this being the first case, they acknowledge that the athlete was trying to help the sport, but overlooked the fine print.
Now everyone explicitly knows the fine print, so please seek prior approval as we have to make sure it is not being done in a hazardous way and it is not under cutting the event’s own commercial interests.
The apology and how it is done should not even factor in. There is literally NOTHING to apologize for, as the guy was inherently helping UM. They should be thanking him for having initiative to help build the sport and tell its story.
Ya, but… We’ve got pro athletes who claim to never realize food or bodily fluids could be contaminated and we’re expecting randoms to know about the filming policy of a small race company in the age of social media?
So, in reality, throwing the book at this guy to send a message won’t work because the only people who will hear the message will be those that are turned off by the brand. And the next excited newcomer that hypes up their results and is awarded with a DQ will be just as in the dark as the proverbial popped triathlete.
I think there is a difference between IM/T100 and the large prize pools the athletes are competing for, versus UM which has no prizes. The fine print doesn’t matter as much because the stakes are lower.
@Lurker4 I think you and I are in alignment. It was stupid of their board to throw the book at him. They should have just got rights to the content and just reminded people that they have this clause and then they can use the content and he can use the content to promote things.
I think the ‘safety’ bit is overhyped. Until it’s shown that there’s an epidemic of actual, real injuries due to camera use during races, races should seriously consider allowing them. It’s the BEST promotional they can get for their events.
If I could see multiple videos of a race prior to doing it, it only ups my desire to do it, as I’m now invested in it to some degree, and already it seems more realistic and familiar then all the other no-video races where it’s a giant question mark. This was true for me for sure leading up to my decision to do the pricey Escape from Alcatraz tri - multiple youtube videos, including a full length video of the entire bike course with power and elevation marked - awesome!
I do understand that the races want to protect the right to profit of their brand, but you’re really shooting yourself in the foot by preventing athletes from doing the self-advertising for you. I don’t think it’s that dissimlar to major labels passively not going after small youtube artists who do covers of some of their hit songs without payment -it helps the original artist and brand to have more recent coverage out there.
I think the RDs could more intelligently implement this, like asking videographers to put their logo in the video and possibly shout out upcoming events, rather than shutting them all down.
@lightheir of course you are making too much sense but common sense gets in the way of most board members on power trips. That’s exactly what is going on here. They are the insecure ones needing to show the world they are in charge.
As they say, power amplifies the goodness or the badness in anyone. It just does. They did not get the behaviour they want out of a participant, so they felt their power threatened and “needed to take action” to show “who is in charge”. That’s insecure pettiness that you get from insecure people in charge of anything in life.
Leadership is about being hard nosed when it is unpopular to so the right thing and being fair and maybe lenient when circumstances warrant it. They did not need to be hard nosed in this case 9because it was not about doing the right thing), what they needed to do was just be fair and let this one go by creating a win win solution.
Just a reminder to everyone. This article from @Ironmandad is a fact based reporting artilce with all the information that he could get. He isn’t going to give you his "Opinion " on the matter nor should he… So stop asking
I’m with you on this one. Unfortunately this race series just needs to go away and comeback as some new brand with totally new management. For over a decade now it has run on the fumes of its former glory and the goodwill and positive talk of those early athletes. But it has morphed into something so negative that even its past hero’s are either mute or done with it…It can’t make any money with 20 people doing these events, so as far as I can figure it must be some power thing that keeps folks putting on bad race after bad race…
This rule has actually been around in most triathlons/federations now for at least 10-12 years. It started seeping in roughly in the 2008-2010 timeframe, when a few pro triathletes started doing it on races, and providing race commentary afterwards. The cameras were always mounted on bars/etc…
The theory at the time was federations were concerned that people would be holding cameras (e.g. selfie stick style), and/or messing with camera settings mid-ride, leading to crashes. To be fair, that’s valid.
I do appreciate though, that virtually every triathlon federation/race rule that I’ve seen on this topic, as simply said “with prior permission”, and in my experience, every single time I’ve asked to have a on-bike mounted camera record in a triathlon, they’ve easily said yes. Once or twice they simply asked that I turn it on in transition, and not touch it till the end of the race (which, is totally fine for sprints/Oly where battery is long enough, but less ideal obviously for half/full…or longer).
The commercial side of this didn’t really enter in till years later, when we started seeing things like virtual rides (ala FulGaz/etc…), or on the pro cycling side content licensing deals (ala Velon/etc…). That said, the overwhelming majority of races are keenly aware that assuming simply a bike-mounted camera that you’re not fiddling with, is easy and free PR.
Ban selfie sticks and bike computers then. Probably should ban water bottle cages too if we want to make sure no one is biking one handed while doing stuff.
The rule making class in every sport has a tendency to go over board with policing the participants if they aren’t held back by leadership who cares about the customer experience.
Agreed. In this day and age you want your athletes making interesting content and spreading the word. Not just for a small outfit like UM, but it also benefits the bigger players like IM.
As long as it is safe - by all means. And if you need to set rules to ensure safety on the bike, then do so (voice activated, hands free, mounted in a certain way, etc.).
One of the odder points in this day an age IMO is the rule about communication devices. Maybe for the pros you say that they can’t whip out a phone to check the timing mats, but if a BOP AGer wants to whip out their phone during the run to take some selfies or a video then by all means. Just make sure its done in a way that doesn’t interfere with anyone else or compromise safety.
To ensure the Ultraman events preserve their unique characteristics and experience, the Ohana Loa Board of Directors have established a set of guidelines and procedures potential Race Directors need to follow. If you are an experienced race director and are interested in bringing an Ultraman event to your local community, please contact us at [ohanaloainc2012@gmail.com](mailto: ohanaloainc2012@gmail.com).
