Home Chat General Chat

Something even more controversial.....

bennybenny Posts: 1,314
You shouldn't be allowed to do a sprint race if you bike isn't RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • bennybenny Posts: 1,314
    You shouldn't be allowed to post this kind of thread unless you are Conehead or Treefrog!
  • If you can find the entry fee, then you can enter whatever event you like. If newbies didn't enter these events on a whim then who would the kit and bike manufacturers sell all their shiny stuff to.
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    That's hardly controversial. Your rules are consistent and transparent.

    If you were an event organiser, and had, say, 100 slots in a race; with 99 entrants that would do it in < 2hrs, but 1 that would take > 5hrs, it is going to be a bit tedious having all the marshalls hanging around for that extra 3 hours.

    Conversely, if you had 1,000 slots in the race, but only allowed super elite athletes, so only ended up with 100 entrants, you would feel a bit foolish.

    However, a range of abilities makes drafting less likely. Think of all the effort that goes into working out the start order in a plain old cycling TT.

    Really, it is an issue that is up to the event organisers - a way of balancing supply and demand (another systems would be first come, first served).

    I don't see anything wrong with having a qualifying time.

    Where your premise might come unstuck is if there is no correlation between sprint performances and ironman performances. And there probably isn't.

    But on the whole, I don't see a problem.

    Now if you basis of selection was on something treefrogian, like cost of running shoes, or colour of bike, then...
  • GHarvGHarv Posts: 456

    Not sure i think that this is that controversial.

    I think a lot of people want to do an ironman and end up doing it to tick it off on their shopping list of challenges and don't really get in to Tri as a sport. This would help stop that happening.

    Also rather than scaring of newbies i think it gives a clear progression to follow and encourages people to start at the bottom and have to train. 2 hours for a sprint is a long time! When i started i could only swim 25m front crawl, didn't have a bike, had never owned a racing bike and had 6 1/2 inches more round the middle than i do now in 3 months i did a 1:16. This is not to sound clever but it was only when i saw that the person who came last the year before had done 1:30 that i realised that i needed to get my finger out and HTFU.

    I think a time limit gives everyone focus and something to aim to.


    P.S. Got the book for Christmas - really enjoyed it.
  • EdstgEdstg Posts: 83
    Is it actually possible to do an olympic in over 3 1/2 hours?

  • If you support this kind of theory - the sport dies....

    I once heard someone say that there were too many people doing the london marathon in bunny suits and dressed up as clown's... they said shoot the last 4 people every mile, that way these people wont enter....

    as absurd as this sounds.... you sound the same....

    What happened, you did a little training, felt good about coming in the top 100 at an event and then thought, i feel good... i will look down on those people coming last...

    were you bullied at school?

    do you have a Jesus complex?

    come on, bring more people into the sport, dont try and make it so elite.... if someone wants to doggy paddle, cycle a 3 wheeler and then walk, then let them. Dont speak for the event organisers and volunteers, i think they would rather let them do their race and enjoy it and look for ways to ban mid table egotists trying to ruin the sport....

  • Xyzee_ukXyzee_uk Posts: 100
    Now I believe that is Conehead being told! [:D][:D]
  • GHarvGHarv Posts: 456

    Unless it's Treefrog (To stir it up) i don't think anyone is trying to be elitist or prevent new people from entering the sport i think we all welcome it.

    I'm only in my second year but i did a half marathon in January and there was a time limit of 2:45. I did a a 5k the the other year and it had a time limit of 25 minutes. Football lasts 90 minutes, Rugby 80.

    Conhead is also stirring as he points out, limits will never happen broadbrush but check out the forums lots of people want to know how long i should take to do a sprint, oly etc. because they want a reference elite or not?

    Completeing a triathlon is a big thing for lots of people taking a day to do a sprint i would say maybe isn't? Whether someone one is able bodied or not they have 17 hours to do an ironman if you do it over that your not an ironman. Thats the challenge of the sport. Fact.

    I think having done a 70.3 is a fair enough qualifier for an ironman.

    Completeing a sprint in under 2 hours and being able to call yourself a triathlete i think is a worthy goal. If you do it good for you if you miss it try again and learn from it.

    Thats sport.

  • GGBGGB Posts: 482
    I wouldn't say its contraversial at all ..

    I do think that certain events should have time limits though - and I beleive some do anyway.

    As a newby to the sport I would start at the bottom and work kmy way up the distances if I feel the sport is fo rme .. but If I was say a long distance swimmer and had been for years and also cycled and ran as part of my daily routine then I would probably say a sprint would not be a hard enough challange - so IMHO it is all dependant on personal ability and I dont think you should start at the sprint and work your way up if you are capable of achieving greater distances to start with.

    Theres no point doing it unless its challanging is my point ... I think

  • treefrogtreefrog Posts: 1,242
    Needless to say I think you are spot on - there should be cut off times and if you finish outside these times then you get a DNF

    That way when you take on to train for an event and to enter the event you know what you're letting yourself in for.

    The Ironman thing is a good point.Most IM's and half IM's do have cut off times. IM does attract alot of people into triathlon and many of these have had illustrious careers in other sports, to these people its no huge deal to take on an IM, however like IM specific athletes there is always the chance that it could go badly wrong on the day, yet through sheer determination and athletic experience they get through it (before cut-off) so maybe some allowance has to be factored in there.

    The bozos who should not be allowed do IM are people like my mate who pulled out on the bike circuit; he had not trained, he put himself in danger and all that, but also he took up a place on a bona fide athlete.

    Good Thread

  • JulesJules Posts: 987
    Edstg wrote:

    Is it actually possible to do an olympic in over 3 1/2 hours?

    I hope not, I'm doing my first two this year.

    I managed my first sprint last year after very little training on a hybrid bike in just over an hour and a half, two hours would be very slow.

    Personally I think it should be down to market forces. If iromman and 70.3 distance races are oversubscribed then an entry level of performance would be a good way to decide who can enter. However, for less popular races, why bother?

    As long as the race organisers make it clear the time they will marshall the race until, and competitors know that after that time they are on their own then where's the problem?

    There's also a danger that triathlon would become perceived as a sport only for elitist arrogant wankers...
  • BoycieBoycie Posts: 189
    I think there is a big difference between having cut off times and having to qualify for a race, which is the impression I get from Coneheads post. Lots of races have cut off points, which is necassary for logistics. But why anyone should have to start at sprints before they can qualify for the next level is beyond me.

    As for the point made that it would cut down the people who sign up to an Ironman to tick off a challenge and never get involved in the sport, why shouldn't they? If you've got a sedentary couch potato that is inspired by Ironman to get off their arse and become active, then surely that is the point off sport. Maybe the next year they will do a marathon, the year after a mountain bike race.....

    Do you think that all entrants to the London marathon should qualify by completing 5 km , 10 km etc races?
  • BlinkybazBlinkybaz Posts: 1,144

    Thats a big idea in a growing sport.

    If this kind of rule system is required then maybe some races need tobe organised!

    If you make this an elitest sport then you wont get the newbies wanting to start as you will appling far to much pressure on the times they need to get.

    So if I wanted to do a sprint would I have to finish a novice in under 1 and half hours?

    I can see your point and in some cases the best or fitter athletes will need to compete at a higher level to improve but this seems abit extreme to roll out across a races!!!!
  • jonEjonE Posts: 1,113
    Instead of time cutoffs the referees should be more Draconian in the enforcement of regulations.One drafting offence == dq. obusive behaviour== race ban for life etc etc.This would wittle down the entry numbers for races so that slower runners wearing hi tec squash shoes would not impede the advancing Treefrogs of this world.

    From my experience it is the ones that ''think ''they are fastest ,are the ones who are more abusive to others
  • Being all innocent and wide-eyed about this triathlon malarkey (first season this year) I was most heartened to hear so much positivity about 'how friendly' the sport is, 'how inclusive it is', and how newcomers are welcomed and encouraged. And yes, I've experienced this already through this forum by the exceptional generosity of members who freely give their advice and encouragement to us newbies.

    I know you probably started this thread 'tongue-in-cheek', and yes it does raise some interesting points and replies so well done for winding me up!

    Thanks again to everyone for all your advice and encouragement (you know who you are I won't embarress you with names), I'm sure you've inspired many an amateur like myself!
  • MowfMowf Posts: 272
    I would like to add some points if I may:

    I have to say that the ‘tick box’ merchants annoy the hell out of me. Let’s face, it anyone can do a marathon in 6 hours – if you have to walk half of it, have you really done it? Anyone can do a triathlon; as long as they have practically unlimited time to do it. I mean, I actually know of someone who had a rest in T1 and T2 of a sprint event. What the hell is the point? The problem is that if you allow to much mediocrity in any sport, you devalue the achievements of those who take it seriously.

    You have it in loads of sports. For example I am a skiing instructor. On my course only two of us passed out of a group of about 8. Those who failed obviously complained about how it was too hard. But they were missing the point. To lower the standard, even a little bit, is to devalue the achievements of everybody else who wears the same badge.

    Now I have to say, I disagree with qualifying times at the lesser distances. But to call yourself an ironman should mean that you are super fit. If you are not properly fit, you should stick to the lower distances and train hard until you are. If you allow people to ‘have a go’ you will soon end up with what you have at the London Marathon i.e. nobody respects the distance. You’ll get tosser celebrities like Gordon Ramsay doing it and saying how fit they are – if at any point you have to walk or stop (unless you make a mistake and blow-up or get your nutrition wrong) you are not fit enough to take part – so don’t.

    Yes, that is probably an elitist attitude. But as someone who aspires to be an Ironman (one day) – I want to join the ranks of the super fit and dedicated. Not the ranks of ‘done that, move on’ merchants.

    And breathe.
  • jon_gjon_g Posts: 318
    so mowf are you saying i'm not really an ironman cos i walked most of the marathon???? my knee was in serious agony yet i still finished just under 13 hours. i trained for 7 months. committed myself to it. but you are saying that cos i walked it doesnt count? i've been doing triathlons for 12 years, there was no way in hell i was going to drop out just because my knee hurt! i pushed myself further than i've ever been physically and emotionally. and i'm doing it all again this year because i was hoping to finish in 11 hours but didnt. i will get as close as i can this year, but if that doesnt happen then i will try again and again until i do. and when i do, i will then aim higher. surely thats the point, to be the best you can?
  • MowfMowf Posts: 272
    No that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact you are the sort of person who can quite rightly call himself an Ironman - hard training, and only an unfortunate inury stopped you going faster. You were/are clearly fit enough. I'm talking about the clowns who were never going to run the whole marathon.

    You are clearly a good athlete - a sub 13 hour ironman is pretty decent without a bad knee, as far a i am aware. But how would you feel about being compared to someone who took closer to 20 hours to do it? I mean you're both Ironmen. Aren't you?
  • sfullersfuller Posts: 628
    Mowf, Im totally against you on this. If someone completes and Ironman in 9 hours or 17 hours they are still an Ironman.... just because one person did it faster doesn't mean they trained harder or wanted it more. Triathlon is, and should always be, a sport that welcomes athletes/competitors of all standards, sizes and abilities. I have been interested in Triathlon for a couple of years, watched a few and talked a lot about it but, this will be my first season 'competing'.... if over those couple of years I had come across people like you and heard things like this topic I, and Im sure many others, would never have got involved Triathlon. Triathlon, apparently, is the biggest growing sport in the UK.... this is due to its open arms treatment.... there is no need to be elitist. Everyone does sport and specifically Triathlon for their own reasons, mine is for fun... not to break records.
  • deeessdeeess Posts: 150

    You have it in loads of sports. For example I am a skiing instructor. On my course only two of us passed out of a group of about 8. Those who failed obviously complained about how it was too hard. But they were missing the point. To lower the standard, even a little bit, is to devalue the achievements of everybody else who wears the same badge.

    Surely the point is that to lower the standard for passing a skiing qualification endangers lives rather than devalues a badge - it's not a comparable situation at all.

    The problem with elitist sentiments like this is that you are telling the world to live by your terms. Frankly if I want to participate and the organisers are willing to accept me then it really is none of your concern. It certainly doesn't devalue your achievements if I come in substantially slower (devalue in whose eyes anyway? are you after some 3rd party recognition of your fitness?).

    The only reasons I could see for restricting entry is if demand for places is bigger than supply and a dedicated athlete that has trained for years is prevented from taking part due to someone deciding on a whim they wanted to try an Ironman - would be a bit of a choker. Not sure if that happens or not.
  • BoycieBoycie Posts: 189
    Mowf, "the point is" that these people are doing it for themselves, probably not to impress you or earn your respect. If they feel they've achieved then who cares if you feel it de-values your acheivements.
  • im in the category that if you have to walk then why bother i have done marathons in the distant past but my last one which i had spent many months training for i tore knee ligaments after nearly 20 miles and it took me nearly 5 hours to finsh this was after 45 mins treatment and heavy strapping. and i did run the last 6 miles of sorts although very slow which is why it was such a slow time but im so glad i finsihed and felt it was more of an acheivment than marathons i had completed in a quicker time and without injury. im 45 now and i have yet to do my first tri i set out last year losing 2 stone and training for 5 months to do the halesowen tri only to have it cancelled 2 weeks before the event. i did do the full coarse on my own for the hell of it and i was pleased with my time but i have started to train this year and my goal is to do 2 sprints and depending how i get on do an olympic distance i know if fit an no injurys i can complete in a reasonable time and i wont finsh last but the only aim is to set a personal best im not worried about what anyone else thinks so for someone to say that you cannot compete because you cant do a given time is wrong. 99% of people are not going to be elite athletes tri is one of the hardest acheivements you can strive for and should be there to be enjoyed by all. But i do agree you need to train to give the sport the respect it deserves.
  • husslerhussler Posts: 237
    If this kind of thing happened then we would not get the support or atmosphere that you currently get at events.

    From someone who finishes generally in the top 10 of 90% of the races I enter, I can be sometimes seen as one of 'those' to try and beat. I love watching all the guys at the back of the pack finish and will regularly say well done to these guys. I think that it is these people who actually make the atmosphere like it is at events, those who dont care where they finish as long as they finish.

    To add a qualifying time then this would put people off from trying the sport and what about people like myself?? Olympic/standard distance events are my least favourite and if I had the choice I would never had done one... even though I can quite happily do one in sub 2:10, I prefer the longer distances Middle upwards.... but using this criteria I would be still stuck on sprint distances... I have to do a few Standard distances every year to satisfy sponsors and to use as a days training. If it wasnt for that reason I would not be doing them.

    Keep it as an open event or we could risk the sport going Elitist, never a good thing!!!
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    I'm a bit confused about why everything is getting so heated.

    The principle of selection doesn't seem too bad: Why not have to reach some target to get in to the Olympics, national championships etc. As the popularity of the sport increases, events can become over subscribed. An event of 500 with all your peers is probably going to have a better atmosphere than one with 50,000 where it takes 2 hours to go through transition.

    A lot of events already have "waves". This is the same principle.

    I don't think anyone would say that _all_ events should be exclusive, that would be absurd. In the same way that football has leagues, I don't see why the same couldn't apply. The prime factor is the size of events. Once events get too big you might want to select: either on ability, or some other equitable means.

    In the same way that some events would be for "elite", some would also be for those of "middle", "lower", "novice" ability.

    Of course the sport doesn't want to be elitist. But I really wouldn't want all events to be like the London marathon - which is all about spectacle rather than sport. An event with 30,000+ entrants just seems like a nightmare to me.

    But this is still early days for the sport!
  • treefrogtreefrog Posts: 1,242
    I think Mowf is quite right, and what's wrong with being elitist
  • jon_gjon_g Posts: 318
    thing is though, almost all events are split up into groups or have a cutoff time. London tri is split into different heats so the roads dont get congested. ironman and half ironman half strict cut off times. and i mean very strict. at ironman uk last year an older gent missed the swim cutoff by 2 minutes, and that was it, he got pulled off the course. surely everyone knows this about different events so if you dont like the way an event is because there are too many 'amateurs' then dont enter it. go race at the olympics, there's only elite athletes there. but guess where they started racing? next to people like you and me. racing against people on hybrids or mountain bikes. i'm happy to line up in races like ironman where all of us where in the water and i knew that somewhere in the dark, feeling just as cold as i was bella commerford was starting her day alo9ngside me and all the people that wanted to try and see if the could do an ironman. finishing in 8 hours is no easier for the pro's than finishing in 15 hours 59 minutes and 59 secs is for the very last person to cross the line before the cutoff. i love seeing people out on the course obviously struggling but determined not to give up, isnt that what its all about?
  • ,my two cents worth...

    i have come to realsise that there is some people who race a race and some people who compete in a race.

    all of these people are doing it for their own reasons

    the elite prop because they are getting paid to enter the event or want to win the prize money.

    the ones behind the elites because they hope to be the ones paid to enter next year

    and everyone else because they love doing tri/want to fulfill a goal etc

    all very good reasons

    maybe having some more fun/first tri races for the newbies would be good.

    there already are elitist races such as olympics where there are only a handful of compeditors

    I don't race-well not in the run section as i know i'm too slow but did come out of the water at the same time as the 2nd man in a Half IM...

    i also TAKE PART in lots of charity 5k/10k races i'm sure the charity don't care weather i finish first or last and i get to enjoy these races while giving to a worthy cause=everyone WINS!

  • starcherstarcher Posts: 126
    Well heres my bit,

    I believe Triathlon should be for everyone I hope to go onto Iron distance over the next year or two dependant on staying injury free etc Now if i had to go through every distance achieving set targets no matter how easy they might be it would certainly make the path to Ironman seem a much longer one.

    On the flip side I did get knocked off my bike at the south coast tri last year buy a girl who couldnt unclip from her pedals who fell straight into me but "shit happens" thats part of racing in my book.

    One more point regarding elitism it would have been a shame If chrissie wellington wasnt alllowed to enter kona in 2007 cos of her lack of experience.....

  • jonEjonE Posts: 1,113
    treefrog wrote:

    I think Mowf is quite right, and what's wrong with being elitist

    There is nothing wrong with being elitist provided you can walk the walk.Sport needs athletes that can rise above the flotsam and jetsam,and yet help the others along the way,not think of them as a hinderance to their own goal.Nobody likes a tosser,if Chissie Wellington had an agressive attitude to other racers do you think should would have been given a CO2 cannister to finish the race.If you p*^s into the wind it will come back at you twice as hard.

    Is the arguement here really about times,or deeper down is it about races that fill up with people just looking for a tick on their life list,stopping the ones that have invested time and money into a sport that they enjoy.triathlon is reaching critical mass,any solutions out there or just more problems????
  • Some of the replies here about wanting races to be for the top 50% only are pretty mind-blowing, what's wrong with you people. Is this an inclusive or an exclusive sport? If you think a race which only has 500 competitors instead of 2,000 is going to have more atmosphere to it then you've been smoking something dodgy. And are those 500 elites going to stump up 4 times the entry fee for a big event. Which do you think will attract the most SPONSORS to an event, inclusive or exclusive?

    If you're griping about triathletes not being able to enter over-subscribed events then I suggest you ask them to access their wallet a bit earlier instead of moaning about it afterwards.

    If you want to have your small elite only triathlons then I suggest you get on and organise one and see how much interest it attracts from the real world. That way there will be more space in the big events for people with hopes, dreams and ambitions. Personally, my PB for olympic distance is under 3 hours, but I know which event I'd rather be at.

Sign In or Register to comment.