View Full Version : Why aren't tri's more proportional?
I was going to ask this before, and then I saw the following quote today -
(snip) I just wish there would be some longer distance non-drafting events that had fairer swim
lengths. (Change of topic<g>!?) The ITU long distance races are closer to the Olympic Distance
proportions than IM distance proportions are but these races are few. Would be good to see more
middle distance races with proportionately longer swims (like Muskoka) otherwise the strong swimmers
will continue to gravitate towards draft-legal events where the swim (sometimes) can have more
impact. (snip)
I've long thought that tris heavily favor the run - proportionally, the longest leg is almost always
the run. Consider the last few tris we had in our town -
1. 200 yd swim, 6 mi bike, 5k run
2. 1/2 mi swi, 18 mi bike, 6.8 mi run I mean, these are hardly proportional! Yet, they seem to fit
the "average" race out there. If you want another way to view it, consider that in olympic
distance, most of the swimmers finish within 10 min of the fastest one, yet the time gap between
the runners will be MUCH greater. And sorry, 18mi bike doesn't even BEGIN to compare to a 6.8 mi
run! Personally, as a strong swimmer\cyclist and (at best) average runner, this is frustrating as
heck, and causes me to pick my races very carefully.
Why is this? I guess there are several reasons -
3. Most triathletes have a running background. To them, it may seem proportional, since they view a
10k the same way I view a 50mi ride - no big deal.
4. Most tris seem to be wedded to the IM proportions, but don't factor in the change in difficulty.
Swimming in a lake is nowhere NEAR as challenging as swimming in the Hawaiian surf, and your
all-too-usual flat bicycle course is a joke compared to the Hawaiian one. I understand that
Kansas isn't going to have much in the way of hills, but then why be so strictly proportional
most\all of the time? Why not make the distance more relative to the difficulty? I think it then
comes down to the next one -
5. Since most triathletes are good runners and not great swimmers, they favor the courses that
emphasize their skills. As a result, they gravitate to the events that have proportionally longer
runs, and event planners respond accordingly when they plan their course.
It's funny to see people complain that draft-legal events are bad because they favor the strong
runners when most non-draft events do the same thing!
OK, fire away!
"topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message news:46504cc3.0307030206.4d6a556@posting.google.com...
> 3. Since most triathletes are good runners and not great swimmers, they favor the courses that
> emphasize their skills.
Which is something I have never understood. Isn't this why we have duathlons? If you can't cook,
stay out of the kitchen.
We went around and around with this in the early 80s. The argument was called "parity" The sport
"evolved" to its distances. International was mostly based on existing swim bike run distances. USTS
series established that into our sport. Ironman was based upon existing races in Hawaii. Fletch
Hanks in Oxford did an "equilateral" race that had a 5 mi swim 60 mi bike and 20 mile run. Molina
won it, but not too many wanted to swim that far in cold water. I didn't. There have been
experiments but we've settled into what we have.
Ray
"topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message news:46504cc3.0307030206.4d6a556@posting.google.com...
> I was going to ask this before, and then I saw the following quote today -
>
> (snip) I just wish there would be some longer distance non-drafting events that had fairer swim
> lengths. (Change of topic<g>!?) The ITU long distance races are closer to the Olympic Distance
> proportions than IM distance proportions are but these races are few. Would be good to see more
> middle distance races with proportionately longer swims (like Muskoka) otherwise the strong
> swimmers will continue to gravitate towards draft-legal events where the swim (sometimes) can have
> more impact. (snip)
>
> I've long thought that tris heavily favor the run - proportionally, the longest leg is almost
> always the run. Consider the last few tris we had in our town -
> 1. 200 yd swim, 6 mi bike, 5k run
> 2. 1/2 mi swi, 18 mi bike, 6.8 mi run I mean, these are hardly proportional! Yet, they seem to fit
> the "average" race out there. If you want another way to view it, consider that in olympic
> distance, most of the swimmers finish within 10 min of the fastest one, yet the time gap
> between the runners will be MUCH greater. And sorry, 18mi bike doesn't even BEGIN to compare to
> a 6.8 mi run! Personally, as a strong swimmer\cyclist and (at best) average runner, this is
> frustrating as heck, and causes me to pick my races very carefully.
>
> Why is this? I guess there are several reasons -
> 1. Most triathletes have a running background. To them, it may seem proportional, since they view
> a 10k the same way I view a 50mi ride - no big deal.
> 2. Most tris seem to be wedded to the IM proportions, but don't factor in the change in
> difficulty. Swimming in a lake is nowhere NEAR as challenging as swimming in the Hawaiian surf,
> and your all-too-usual flat bicycle course is a joke compared to the Hawaiian one. I understand
> that Kansas isn't going to have much in the way of hills, but then why be so strictly
> proportional most\all of the time? Why not make the distance more relative to the difficulty? I
> think it then comes down to the next one -
> 3. Since most triathletes are good runners and not great swimmers, they favor the courses that
> emphasize their skills. As a result, they gravitate to the events that have proportionally
> longer runs, and event planners respond accordingly when they plan their course.
>
> It's funny to see people complain that draft-legal events are bad because they favor the strong
> runners when most non-draft events do the same thing!
>
> OK, fire away!
topdog@stic.net (topdog) wrote in message news:<46504cc3.0307030206.4d6a556@posting.google.com>...
> I've long thought that tris heavily favor the run - proportionally, the longest leg is almost
> always the run. Consider the last few tris we had in our town -
> 1. 200 yd swim, 6 mi bike, 5k run
> 2. 1/2 mi swi, 18 mi bike, 6.8 mi run I mean, these are hardly proportional! Yet, they seem to fit
> the "average" race out there. If you want another way to view it, consider that in olympic
> distance, most of the swimmers finish within 10 min of the fastest one, yet the time gap
> between the runners will be MUCH greater. And sorry, 18mi bike doesn't even BEGIN to compare to
> a 6.8 mi run!
Well actually, an 18 mile bike is pretty close to being proportional to a 6.8 mile run timewise for
someone who is equally strong in the bike and run. However, the swim is certainly short-changed in
that race if you are looking at the completion time of each leg. A strong swimmer could do a half
mile swim in 9 or 10 minutes, a top cyclist would probably do 18 miles in under 45 mins and a top
runner would be able to do 6.8 miles in under 40 mins. So the bike is actually favored a bit in this
scenerio. However the swim would need to be over 2 miles to make it proportional, assuming someone
was equally strong in all three disciplines. Your first example definitely favors the runners and
would not be something most stong swimmers or cyclists would want to do. (200 yard swim takes 2 mins
- geez the transitions take longer!)
> Why is this? I guess there are several reasons -
> 1. Most triathletes have a running background. To them, it may seem proportional, since they view
> a 10k the same way I view a 50mi ride - no big deal.
And I view a 4000m swim as typical moderate swim workout, yet that is the IM distance swim - hardly
comparable to a 112 mile bike and marathon IMO.
> 2. Most tris seem to be wedded to the IM proportions, but don't factor in the change in
> difficulty. Swimming in a lake is nowhere NEAR as challenging as swimming in the Hawaiian surf,
> and your all-too-usual flat bicycle course is a joke compared to the Hawaiian one. I understand
> that Kansas isn't going to have much in the way of hills, but then why be so strictly
> proportional most\all of the time? Why not make the distance more relative to the difficulty?
Good point.
> I think it then comes down to the next one -
> 3. Since most triathletes are good runners and not great swimmers, they favor the courses that
> emphasize their skills. As a result, they gravitate to the events that have proportionally
> longer runs, and event planners respond accordingly when they plan their course.
Most of the local races in NJ/PA/DE have swims of 1/4-1/2 mile, bikes of 13-15 and runs of 5k-5
miles. Once a race director for one of the races that has a 1/4 mile swim asked why I never do his
race. I told him it wasn't worth it for a 1/4 mile swim - if he upped it to a 1/2 mile I would be
there. He said a 1/2 mile is too long for most folks, he likes to have all levels from beginners to
fast races (offers prize money to top 3). Well then, maybe have a beginner's division where it is a
1/4m swim (wetsuit allowed even if above 78) and then have a more fair non-beginner's race with a
longer swim. Mountain bike races have novice races that are shorter than the sport races which are
shorter than the expert races. Tri could do the same if they are afraid of losing beginners b/c they
are afraid the swim is too daunting for them. Triathlon has become so much more popular that most
races sell out ahead of time anyhow. Maybe it is time to start making the swim a bit longer. Even IM
races sell out immediately and Team in Training gets beginners ready for 1/2 IM races, so the
average Joe CAN swim 1.2 miles, IF he trains for the swim. (Why should anyone expect to be able to
do a triathlon without training anyhow!) Why not have a fairer race - like a 1.5k swim, 15k-20k bike
and 5k run?
>
> It's funny to see people complain that draft-legal events are bad because they favor the strong
> runners when most non-draft events do the same thing!
Even MORE so.
-hug
>
> OK, fire away!
"Ray Plotecia" <imagectl@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3b2dnVBrIbhrqJmiXTWJlg@comcast.com>...
> We went around and around with this in the early 80s. The argument was called "parity" The sport
> "evolved" to its distances. International was mostly based on existing swim bike run distances.
> USTS series established that into our sport. Ironman was based upon existing races in Hawaii.
> Fletch Hanks in Oxford did an "equilateral" race that had a 5 mi swim 60 mi bike and 20 mile run.
> Molina won it, but not too many wanted to swim that far in cold water. I didn't.
Well I wouldn't be interested in a 5mile swim/60 mile bike/ 20 mile run either - all are too long
for my liking. Cut all legs in half and I would CERTAINLY be interested! (And it STILL wouldn't be
fair to the swimmers...but definitely headed in the right direction!)
> There have been experiments but we've settled into what we have.
And some people (perhaps the swimmers) will never be happy just settling I guess. I think it is a
good thing for a sport to evolve and try different formats. Super sprints are a blast. I think that
race in Ohio - Triple T??? sounds like a lot of fun - stage race with a prologue, team time trials,
individual time trials, different distances. I don't think settling into one mold is necessarily a
good thing.
-hug
"Ray Plotecia" <imagectl@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3b2dnVBrIbhrqJmiXTWJlg@comcast.com>...
> We went around and around with this in the early 80s. The argument was called "parity" The sport
> "evolved" to its distances. International was mostly based on existing swim bike run distances.
> USTS series established that into our sport. Ironman was based upon existing races in Hawaii.
> Fletch Hanks in Oxford did an "equilateral" race that had a 5 mi swim 60 mi bike and 20 mile run.
> Molina won it, but not too many wanted to swim that far in cold water. I didn't. There have been
> experiments but we've settled into what we have.
>
> Ray
>
I have no problems with the IM proportional distances, provided that you maintain the IM difficulty
with it. While a bike leg might provide parity in steep terrain, it certainly wouldn't on a flat
course, which all too many races have. The same is true of swimming - an ocean swim in Hawaii is
incredibly more difficult than one in an inland lake of the same distance - very little current and
waves. Therefore, if we decrease the course difficulty, the distances should increase to provide a
little more parity. As it is now, most of the time we have a showcase for the best runners. If you
are really strong on two legs, you will do well - provided that one of those is running. If you're
strong on the swim and bike but just average on running, most of the time you will never challenge.
"topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message news:46504cc3.0307030924.64e15387@posting.google.com...
> While a bike leg might provide parity in steep terrain, it certainly wouldn't on a flat course,
> which all too many races have.
This is a common misconception. There are 2 distinct disavantages to flat courses. One they often
have wind. IM FL for example almost always has a pretty stiff wind. I always prefer hills to wind,
it's a psycological thing about being able to see the hill as well as feel it. The other problem is
that on a flat course you are constantly using the same muscles in the same way. The affect this has
is always underestimated. It's the same for the run, I always find a hilly marathon to be much
easier than a flat one.
The problem I see with longer swims is that the "mid-pack" athletes are doomed to slapping it out
with others in their age group while the fastest swimmers are relatively non-interfered. In my last
race 50% of my age group was within 1 minute of my time and I had to slap it out with them over the
entire distance. I'm against drafting but going off on the last swim wave and being trapped inside a
cluster of swimmers is worse than dealing with disproportionate swim-bike-run distances.
"James Goddard" <news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote in message
news:6SZMa.10690$Zo.150198@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> "topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message
> news:46504cc3.0307030924.64e15387@posting.google.com...
> > While a bike leg might provide parity in steep terrain, it certainly wouldn't on a flat course,
> > which all too many races have.
>
> This is a common misconception. There are 2 distinct disavantages to flat courses. One they often
> have wind. IM FL for example almost always has a pretty stiff wind. I always prefer hills to wind,
> it's a psycological
thing
> about being able to see the hill as well as feel it. The other problem is that on a flat course
> you are constantly using the same muscles in the
same
> way. The affect this has is always underestimated. It's the same for the run, I always find a
> hilly marathon to be much easier than a flat one.
>
> Well actually, an 18 mile bike is pretty close to being proportional to a 6.8 mile run timewise
> for someone who is equally strong in the bike and run. However, the swim is certainly
> short-changed in that race if you are looking at the completion time of each leg. A strong swimmer
> could do a half mile swim in 9 or 10 minutes, a top cyclist would probably do 18 miles in under 45
> mins and a top runner would be able to do 6.8 miles in under 40 mins. So the bike is actually
> favored a bit in this scenerio.
There's much more involved than actual time in the leg. Cycling is low impact, and is going to
require less energy over the same time period as running. With cycling, you have help; with running,
you must solely bear and move the weight. Another way to look at it - while a top cyclist might be
able to do the 18 mi in 45 min, a merely decent one would pull in not too far behind him. OTOH, a
decent runner would likely take a good 15 min longer on the run. Lastly, an 18 mi ride is usually
considered beginner distance, while
6.8 mi on a run is definitely NOT.
> > I think it then comes down to the next one -
> > 3. Since most triathletes are good runners and not great swimmers, they favor the courses that
> > emphasize their skills. As a result, they gravitate to the events that have proportionally
> > longer runs, and event planners respond accordingly when they plan their course.
>
> Most of the local races in NJ/PA/DE have swims of 1/4-1/2 mile, bikes of 13-15 and runs of 5k-5
> miles. Once a race director for one of the races that has a 1/4 mile swim asked why I never do his
> race. I told him it wasn't worth it for a 1/4 mile swim - if he upped it to a 1/2 mile I would be
> there. He said a 1/2 mile is too long for most folks, he likes to have all levels from beginners
> to fast races (offers prize money to top 3). Well then, maybe have a beginner's division where it
> is a 1/4m swim (wetsuit allowed even if above 78) and then have a more fair non-beginner's race
> with a longer swim. Mountain bike races have novice races that are shorter than the sport races
> which are shorter than the expert races. Tri could do the same if they are afraid of losing
> beginners b/c they are afraid the swim is too daunting for them. Triathlon has become so much more
> popular that most races sell out ahead of time anyhow. Maybe it is time to start making the swim a
> bit longer. Even IM races sell out immediately and Team in Training gets beginners ready for 1/2
> IM races, so the average Joe CAN swim 1.2 miles, IF he trains for the swim. (Why should anyone
> expect to be able to do a triathlon without training anyhow!) Why not have a fairer race - like a
> 1.5k swim, 15k-20k bike and 5k run?
I could handle that. Personally, I think you may be overdoing the swim and underdoing the bike;
however, the proportions are not what's important - the question is, is the run overemphasized, and
I think we both feel that it is. If nothing else, give us a bit more VARIETY, rather than just a
handful of races with longer swim\bike legs. BTW, as a part time swim coach, I can attest to your
point about swim training - the biggest mistake I see is people not training properly for the swim.
OF COURSE you're going to die on a 1.2 mi swim if you're hardly training, doing short distances, or
doing the distance over with a lot of breaks. No one would think of training for a 1/2 IM run by
just doing 2 mi once a week, yet I commonly see the equivalent of that in the swim leg. To be fair,
part of it is that running\biking one can do almost anywhere, anytime, while swimming requires both
a pool and a time where there's an open lane (a lake works in the summer, providing there's not a
lot of power boating. This is still a lot harder to do than the other legs.) Still, IMHO the sport
shouldn't make concessions because of lack of training, whatever the reason.
Happily, I have found a fairly proportional tri for my next targeted race - 1/2 mi swim, 18 mi bike,
5k run. Sadly, this is the only one like this I've seen all year!
"James Goddard" <news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote in message
news:<6SZMa.10690$Zo.150198@dfw-read.news.verio.net>...
> "topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message
> news:46504cc3.0307030924.64e15387@posting.google.com...
> > While a bike leg might provide parity in steep terrain, it certainly wouldn't on a flat course,
> > which all too many races have.
>
> This is a common misconception. There are 2 distinct disavantages to flat courses. One they often
> have wind. IM FL for example almost always has a pretty stiff wind. I always prefer hills to wind,
> it's a psycological thing about being able to see the hill as well as feel it. The other problem
> is that on a flat course you are constantly using the same muscles in the same way. The affect
> this has is always underestimated. It's the same for the run, I always find a hilly marathon to be
> much easier than a flat one.
Wind is a sword that cuts both ways. If the course is a loop, you are likely going to spend as much
time with it behind you as you do with it in your face. Besides, it's usually the hills that
separate the men from the boys (just an expression, ladies! <G>). Take the Tour - the flat stages
always have a bunch finish, whereas the mountain stages break apart the pack and the riders stagger
in with some incredible time differences. Personally, I know many riders that can go all day long in
the flats, windy or not (my wife is one of them), but put them on a hilly course and what was a
simple distance becomes a real trial to finish.
"BillX" <ibrunning@aol.com> wrote in message news:be24j8$d1o$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> The problem I see with longer swims is that the "mid-pack" athletes are doomed to slapping it out
> with others in their age group while the fastest swimmers are relatively non-interfered. In my
> last race 50% of my age group was within 1 minute of my time and I had to slap it out with them
over
> the entire distance. I'm against drafting but going off on the last swim wave and being trapped
> inside a cluster of swimmers is worse than dealing with disproportionate swim-bike-run distances.
Go do Mrs. T's sometime. You'll never complain about another race being too crowded again :)
"topdog" <topdog@stic.net> wrote in message news:46504cc3.0307031459.5d632d66@posting.google.com...
> Wind is a sword that cuts both ways. If the course is a loop, you are likely going to spend as
> much time with it behind you as you do with it in your face.
Not quite. Even in a loop you spend more time with a headwind than a tailwind if the wind remains
constant. The rub is you go slower with the headwind and therefore spend more time in it.
In article <46504cc3.0307031459.5d632d66@posting.google.com>, topdog@stic.net (topdog) wrote:
> Wind is a sword that cuts both ways. If the course is a loop, you are likely going to spend as
> much time with it behind you as you do with it in your face.
Well, not exactly. You'll be slower on a closed loop course when it's windy than when it's calm (or
on a hilly course vs. a flat course). The reason: you spend more time going slow (into the wind or
uphill) than you do going fast (with the wind or uphill).
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson
"BillX" <ibrunning@aol.com> wrote in message news:<be24j8$d1o$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> The problem I see with longer swims is that the "mid-pack" athletes are doomed to slapping it out
> with others in their age group while the fastest swimmers are relatively non-interfered. In my
> last race 50% of my age group was within 1 minute of my time and I had to slap it out with them
> over the entire distance.
Perhaps that is because the swim is TOO SHORT!!!! A longer swim (in conjunction with more time
between waves) would spread things out for sure. Just like in running races, it takes a while for
the field to spread out. In a 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile swim there is very little room for the field to
spread out. In an IM with 2000 people all starting at once I would expect it to take more than 2
miles for it to fully start spreading out. Also, if you are swimming with others, you can benefit
from a draft that the swim leader will not have.
I'm against drafting but going off on the last swim
> wave and being trapped inside a cluster of swimmers is worse than dealing with disproportionate
> swim-bike-run distances.
If given the choice I would always prefer to go in later waves and swim through the masses. (I used
to sign up for races on the day and plunk down the extra $10 or $20 late fee just so I could go in
the last wave which was reserved for the late entries.) While it slowed me down during the swim
(which is such a short amount of time anyhow), there is a big psychological advantage once out of
the water to be able to pass people on the bike and run. It beats the hell out of going in the first
wave and being the rabbit for the speedy runners to chase down. BTW, just like in cycling there ARE
ways to get clear water and get around people in the swim.
-hug
hug_le@yahoo.com (hug) wrote in news:d8bcdff1.0307031951.6572f517 @posting.google.com:
> BTW, just like in cycling there ARE ways to get clear water and get around people in the swim.
>
> -hug
>
Oh fine, Lori. Just tease us. Your not going to give us any tips?
Tom
"Tom Henderson" <TomH_4th@BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93AE470B96529TomH4thBellSouthnet@65.82.44.187...
> hug_le@yahoo.com (hug) wrote in news:d8bcdff1.0307031951.6572f517 @posting.google.com:
>
> > BTW, just like in cycling there ARE ways to get clear water and get around people in the swim.
> >
> > -hug
> >
>
> Oh fine, Lori. Just tease us. Your not going to give us any tips?
Avoid wave starts maybe? I've never had this problem with mass or lemming starts. It's always
catching the previous waves that causes bunching.
James
>>If given the choice I would always prefer to go in later waves and
swim through the masses. (I used to sign up for races on the day and plunk down the extra $10 or
$20 late fee just so I could go in the last wave which was reserved for the late entries.) While
it slowed me down during the swim (which is such a short amount of time anyhow), there is a big
psychological advantage once out of the water to be able to pass people on the bike and run. It
beats the hell out of going in the first wave and being the rabbit for the speedy runners to
chase down. BTW, just like in cycling there ARE ways to get clear water and get around people in
the swim.<<
I totally disagree with the idea that coming out behind the bike/run pack is an "advantage". I'm a
strong biker/runner but weak swimmer. When I used to do duathlons I'd be in the front of the race
with the fast biker/runners and my pace was faster as a consequence of keeping up with those around
me. Now that I'm doing triathlons and going off in the last wave my bike/run times are slower even
though I pass lots of people and no one passes me. Given a choice I'd always prefer to be in front
with the rabbits.
In article <be4asi$m7u$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, "BillX" <ibrunning@aol.com> wrote:
> I totally disagree with the idea that coming out behind the bike/run pack is an "advantage". I'm a
> strong biker/runner but weak swimmer. When I used to do duathlons I'd be in the front of the race
> with the fast biker/runners and my pace was faster as a consequence of keeping up with those
> around me. Now that I'm doing triathlons and going off in the last wave my bike/run times are
> slower even though I pass lots of people and no one passes me. Given a choice I'd always prefer to
> be in front with the rabbits.
It's psychological. It feels better to pass lots of people than to get passed, which is why some
people like to start at the back. I agree that if you can get out in front and try to stay there
you'll likely do better in terms of overall time than if you start at the back and pass people, but
you may *feel* like you're getting your ass kicked if you try the former strategy.
At least, that's how it was for me when I set my 5K PR of 17:15; my coach told me to go out with the
leaders and hang on as long as I could. after the first 3/4 mile or so, I started getting passed by
a LOT of people, and I thought I was doing horribly, but I ended up knocking 30 seconds off my PR.
BTW, that was in high school, almost 20 years ago. The only way I'm going to do a 5K that fast these
days is on the bike. :-)
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson
With the costs associated with organizing a tri these days you need to maximize the amount of people
entering the event to insure that you don't lose money. Most people coming into tri's can't swim
anything more than a half mile and having swims longer than that significantly cuts back on your
numbers. It is hard to justify holding an event with a 2 mile swim - 25 mile bike and 6 mile run if
only 100 people would sign up to do that race. There are plenty of well trained athletes that can
handle that but with the large proliferation of championship and Ironman races, the well trained
athletes are not racing as much as they had in the past. Which leaves the RD with the only options
of holding tri's that attract the masses, the masses attract the sponsors, etc, etc, etc.
"Jaeger" <jaeger@erols.com> wrote in message news:5edb3f42.0307041135.7f24bdbc@posting.google.com...
> With the costs associated with organizing a tri these days you need to maximize the amount of
> people entering the event to insure that you don't lose money. Most people coming into tri's can't
> swim anything more than a half mile and having swims longer than that significantly cuts back on
> your numbers. It is hard to justify holding an event with a 2 mile swim - 25 mile bike and 6 mile
> run if only 100 people would sign up to do that race. There are plenty of well trained athletes
> that can handle that but with the large proliferation of championship and Ironman races, the well
> trained athletes are not racing as much as they had in the past. Which leaves the RD with the only
> options of holding tri's that attract the masses, the masses attract the sponsors, etc, etc, etc.
Oh I'm sure you'd be able to find a Team in Training group willing to ruin, err take on your race.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
