I'm already picturing you on course waiting for the 38.5 mile to appear on your Garmin, and you slow down for 0.1 miles. And then when you get to the timing mats you blow past through them at high speed because you already slowed down back on mile 38.5, "like it has been for the past 16 years!!!".

Good luck explaining that to the judges.

Do the race then talk. Why are you criticizing me and not IM. FFS the multi million dollar corporation can’t post the right info in the athlete guide and u wanna defend them. Guess I shoulda put a bottle down my kit.

Words matter. Beating the wrong info into athletes head all weekend is reprehensible.

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

I did the race in 2018 and 2019. The section is very well marked. I didn't need to look at my garmin and confirm it was at the right spot.

You are either a troll, or you are addicted to outrage.

LOL he wins a 70. 3 and all of a sudden hes going to win Kona... Got to love the internet.

At what point do you accept the organisers were wrong? Just out of interest because it works both ways. These are professionals working for a living.

I believe her data shows a substantial difference to the max speed limit.

The organizers were wrong about what?

They could be wrong in the athlete briefing and still have the right to DQ an athlete who would ignore the course marking imposing the speed limit.

(Which they ended up not doing, but apparently for other reasons).

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

I've taken the position ever since the Sanders Taupo fiasco with the terrible officiator that if you're ever racing for a top result and get a day-ending penalty or definitely a DQ ignore the official, keep racing and lodge a protest. This and other results bares that out.

I believe generally IM higher ups don't want to penalize athletes who act reasonably. Sam Long for instance in St George 70.3 world's likely could have made podium and protested just as EPB did here.

If there is evidence that supports the athlete they go with it. And when they don't want to, there's even a chance months later the federation will get a ruling in the athletes favor anyway. So go for broke. Good job Emma!

Dude, this is his first debut as a pro triathlete. He's going to get a lot of attention now.

The organisers have a 'right' to DQ anyone; and they did (don't give them/us the "ended up doing" routine).
Don't think we know on what evidence they DQ'd Currie and EPB, do we?
It would seem super simple to have clear briefing, clear warning and 'start' signing and two mats, at the start and finish of the restricted speed kilometre. Arithmetic will allow complete near live data of anyone going under x seconds for the 'flying k'.
Glad that EPB (or both?) were able to submit ride recording data to support an appeal by demonstrating speed below the limit. But 'allowing the appeal' kudos merely reduces the demerits of a DQ based on dodgy data.

No it shows you always complete the race and file a protest. I wonder if Ryf did that year she was DQd. Or if she didn't bother to appeal because her final place wasn't any good anyway.

I would add that the sustained presence of T100 would tend to increase the deferential treatment given to pro athletes.

If I was Lionel, I would consider knocking out some of the European full distance races, before going all in on Kona prep. He doesn't need to win every race or risk blowing up. He needs to string together some full distance races that look like his Ironman Copenhagen result from 2021. He can podium even if he holds back 1 or 2%. It's not worth it to blow up in this series. Save the true red lining for 70.3s & for Kona & stack some solid race results. He has struggled in the heat but he has also been 2nd in Kona/St. George.

Unrelated -- I do think the points will need to be looked at. Pallant-Browne and Findlay are good athletes who could win a Pro Series 70.3 with similar effort. The Series doesn't reward you for racing strong competition. It doesn't separate out how good a 2nd place finish is at individual races. It's kind of a wasted opportunity for athletes like Thek/Lewis. Those performances will get them better points at any race Knibb isn't at. If I was one of those athletes I would avoid Knibb races & that shouldn't have to be the strategy to do well in a season long series.

Sure, you’re right, it’s just that - as Ben Deal said - “the reinstatement had literally nothing to do with the fact that they apparently mis-stated the exact mileage of the speed zone”.

So, they were wrong, but about something else: the average speed.

Imprecise info being given at the athlete briefing wasn’t material.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

This athlete didn’t go for broke though and correct me if I’m wrong this particular ruling isn’t even a penalty served. You simply get DQ’d and is the worst part is it after the fact? Do they tel the athletes 5km into the run after scrubbing the data to let them know? Or I assume just after the fact in this instance.

This wasn’t Sam Long this wasn’t even really LS last year was it? Did she know she was gettting the penalty? If she didn’t your advice is sorta not applicable here, if your advice is simply to ignore all officiating calls, cool. That’s a shit head policy to suggest. But you do you Lurker but if that’s your attitude to suggest- that’s cool.

Again you’re not getting IM scared of any push back from pros so they’ll just cave. If she has evidence it didn’t happen, she wins. If she didn’t, she would have stayed DQ’d. She didn’t scare IM into letting her off. In this instance the process worked.

If you’re truly suggesting screwing drafting penalty and all calls and appealing because IM is scared to keep an DQ vs Knibb/Blu/Ryf and so they’ll cave, I’d suggest you’re wrong.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Just for clarity on the back of pack pro men, Oceanside is probably the most competitive AG race on the calendar. 19 AG men in 2023 achieved a USAT score rating above the pro standard (that score rating has increased every year since at least 2020, meaning current US pros are achieving more difficult pro standards to earn their pro licenses). In yesterday's race, 39/63 men's pro finishers beat the 1st place AG male. That 1st place finisher will obviously hit the pro standard. If it goes 19 deep again, 59/63 will be inside of the pro cutoff. If you look at the bottom third results, you see a lot of people who do quite well in a single discipline. It's clear that they're working to become more well rounded athletes but they also all have full time jobs. A sport like triathlon should have some depth. 80 on the start list & 60+ finishers is not some massive # compared to the pro pathways in other sports. Part of the problem now is that a lot of the smaller 70.3 races that developing athletes would flock to have disappeared from the calendar, as the # of races (think: Gulf Coast/Oregon/Michigan/Maryland/etc) has decreased for the Pro Series. It didn't look like the women's race was affected yesterday (also just start further apart -- it looked plenty bright out in the 15-20min before the men's start). I don't have a problem with bigger fields & people trying to work their way through the field. You can either win AG races or challenge yourself with better competition if you're on that cut line. Someone like Justin Riele was 22nd at Oceanside last year against a weaker field & was 8th yesterday & got a Worlds slot. That's the kind of development that's really cool to see. Riele could've continued dominating AG races forever.

Knibb would've been 30th in the men's race, with the 24th fastest bike. She outrode Patrick Lange, Matt Hanson, and Matt Sharpe. The "chicked" stuff is outdated/in poor taste imo. The top women are getting better & better. Let's just point out how cool that is.

I would actually put more money in the IM Series, pull pro purses from others but simply include a Pro wave at all the “AG” only IM events. It’s not really a deal breaker if said race is $10k or $20k, that difference is essentially minuscule. So kinda like itu. Conti cups pay out $5k. But the money isn’t the goal- it’s points / experience. So have pro fields in those development races, learn to race other pros etc. same way local developing pro does when they race their local “advanced” category.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

How do they measure speed in that location? I saw the mention of timing mats, so is that how? Or is somebody running radar?

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

Keep handing out swim block and kona advice citing credentials. :)

I've never insulted you for the record.

It's the correct approach given the circumstances. Take Baakegard running with Sam Long and Sanders in St George...what was it, 2020? They are all running that last epic 5k and suddenly Daniel gets told he had a penalty and didn't report and he's DQ'D. The dude should have kept running. Even if it didn't stand, the guy gets to feature more in the race, possibly break the tape. Fight it. Part of endurance sport is about overcoming obstacles. I'm not saying these guys should over turn tables and throw a fit. Exercise their right and go for broke (if they are racing for a podium spot).

Giving poor advice, or worst, not highlighting that potential as the default tactic is negligent for a coach. In the heat of the moment your athlete needs to know what to do.

Sanders didn't in (Lahti). Long didn't in StG. Daniel didn't in StG. Emma, by her report didn't know about the DQ until the end, and she said she didn't think her protest would go anywhere. If she was informed immediately, and she didn't have this tactic in her mind before hand, she'd be frustrated, angry, etc.

The correct response is to nod your head and and race like you've got nothing to lose. The rules clearly allow it. Indeed, they'd even encourage it if you feel you're not in the wrong and have been cheated by a bad call.

The Lionel incident was Lathi, Taupo is this year.

---

Let food be thy medicine...

Must be some quantum entanglement with future me reporting on the next bad luck Championship race for Lionel....

Yeah, that is the correct tactic at least in a half IM. Just put your head down, and get back to racing biz, go as fast as you can and see if you can file a protest later.

In an Ironman, the recovery penalty from a full marathon is so severe, it may not be worth the effort at a pro level. You just can't turn around and do another full IM 2-3 weeks later and do well. Half IM, just go to another race is the protest fails in a few weeks.

I guess I'm just trying to make sure I understand your "strategy". Your "go for broke" comment has me slightly confused on what exactly you are suggesting as a "strategy". (The only strategy to win on appeal is to take the DQ when it's a bad call, I'm kinda questioning if you are suggesting to take any calls to that degree though- calls when you obviously were cheating, but you think they'll cave on appeal; that imo is a "fair play" issue)

If you are saying ignore calls and file a protest because you think IM will cave, I don't necessarily think that'll win you much appeals. That's also to me a bit of a shitty "fair play" issue if you are truly cheating but suggest ignore it and win on appeal because you think your bigger than IM. Hell this protest doesn't even support that theory. The athlete's only get notified after the fact I think and thus they aren't racing the final run "under protest" of anger/emotions. They simply have no clue. Again EPB won because she had evidence that proved she didn't speed. Your not going to have evidence that you didn't liter, or that you didn't draft if the official says you did. So if your saying "ignore it" no matter what and put it on IM to throw their hands up because it's Ryf or LS or insert big name and you think they'll cave- that is where I think is where you won't win many appeals.

If you are suggesting ignore a bad call because you know you did nothing wrong and protest, yes that's 100% a strategy (and that's the only strategy to actual get you back in the results if you fail to serve penalty but win on appeal).

Which if you read my commentary in ITU thread from a few years back, they created that pathway for rule infractions (which now IM has adopted since they've gone with adapting the "world wide" rulebook). The moment you serve your penalty you lose any ability to appeal. So the rule basically states you must "DQ" yourself in order to win on appeal. That's been on the rulebook since I believe 2023, and we discussed the merits of that ruling. It seems harsh especially in an race as short as sprint distances where athletes are only informed of the infraction literally 10-15 mins before the finish line. Now they said they did it this way to eliminate "unneccesary" protests and wasting officials time like between races (where in itu men and women usually race back to back, so having the head of officials in a 10 person que waiting for appeals delays start of next race).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

There is a timing mat at the beginning and end of the zone. They take you time between mats and calculate average speed based on the distance they "know" the zone to be. So you can go faster than 35mph or 25mph for AGers as long as your average speed is under. In the pro briefing they always gave us an exact number of seconds we had to be over to not get DQd. There is absolutely zero ambiguity which is why I was so surprised they were able to appeal with GPS data. Unless they literally had the distance between the mats recorded incorrectly (possible but unlikely), they're opening the door to do something like appeal a drafting penalty by showing strava flyby information. We know that GPS is not accurate enough for small moments in time to make a decision like this on.

I'm absolutely all for limiting penalties where the intent to cheat was not there, but this is an exceptionally well known rule with very clear guidance about how to avoid getting penalized. The entire zone is like 40 seconds long. You're going to lose at most 5 seconds by taking it very cautiously. There is absolutely zero reason to even toe the line of 35mph.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

It should be noted it’s the only strategy an athlete can do to win not being penalized for a “bad call”. My beef is in the context of using that rule. If you’re knowingly riding 9m as draft zone and you want to win your DQ on appeal- you’re an asshole athlete imo. If you’re talking about truly a “bad call” then yes again this is the pathway to win against a bad call. Once you serve the penalty for said “bad call” you then can’t really win on appeal or win back anytime lost. They may say “oops you are right our bad but we can’t do anything now” but if that’s now your justification to take every call to appeal, I just think that’s a fair play issue. But again certainly the only way to win your appeal.

An actual “bad call” is going to be hard to win on appeal. Like most of time they will never overturn an judgement call (which is why bike position fouls are basically not allowed to be appealed). It literally takes misidentify type to win that type of appeal, which is going to be unlikely.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Anyone know which pros took the Worlds slots? I know several already had them, curious where they rolled to.

I know Riele took one and he finished 8th I believe.