Rules/etiquette/ethics question

[John Hardt]

This past weekend, I participated in an Olympic distance
triathlon organized by HFP Racing at Deer Creek State Park
in Ohio. The race was supposed to be a standard 1500m,
40k, 10k Olympic format but there were problems with the
course that resulted in the bike leg being stretched to
nearly 31 miles.

According to the organizer (in an apology issued Monday), a
volunteer blew their assignment and failed to turn
competitors around at the correct turnaround point along a
dead-end state park access road. Not knowing they were
supposed to turn around, all of the participants kept right
on riding until they literally ran out of road in the state
park's lodge parking lot and were forced to turn around and
head back.

The entire field followed the same route and I've always
thought one of the prime principals of triathlon is that no
matter the course, the weather, a competitor's ability, or
other circumstances, if everyone rides the same course in
the same conditions then things are inherently "fair".

On the other hand, USAT rule 5.3 states "The sole
responsibility of knowing and following the prescribed
cycling course rests with each participant. No adjustments
in times or results shall be made for participants who fail
to follow the proper course for any reason whatsoever."

Here's the rub: a few of us knew during the race that
something was very wrong. The Pineman IM distance race is
held on the same course and that race includes 4 laps on a
28 mile bike route. Because of this, we KNEW the turnaround
for a 24.8 mile Olympic distance course HAD to be somewhere
short of the 28 mile Pineman turn around (certainly no
farther). There were cones at the correct turn around point,
although no indication of what they were for.

The question is this: Should those of us (myself included)
that knew something was wrong have gone ahead and turned
around? I averaged a mundane 20 mph on the course, so
turning around at the correct location would have knocked 6
miles off the route and given me a 20 minute advantage on
the field.

What is the consensus opinion out there?

John

 

[Harold Buck]

In article <BCEBD349.7357%[email protected]>,
John Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On the other hand, USAT rule 5.3 states "The sole
> responsibility of knowing and following the prescribed
> cycling course rests with each participant. No adjustments
> in times or results shall be made for participants who
> fail to follow the proper course for any reason
> whatsoever."
>
> Here's the rub: a few of us knew during the race that
> something was very wrong. The Pineman IM distance race is
> held on the same course and that race includes 4 laps on a
> 28 mile bike route. Because of this, we KNEW the
> turnaround for a 24.8 mile Olympic distance course HAD to
> be somewhere short of the 28 mile Pineman turn around
> (certainly no farther). There were cones at the correct
> turn around point, although no indication of what they
> were for.
>
> The question is this: Should those of us (myself included)
> that knew something was wrong have gone ahead and turned
> around? I averaged a mundane 20 mph on the course, so
> turning around at the correct location would have knocked
> 6 miles off the route and given me a 20 minute advantage
> on the field.

You said it yourself when you quoted the rule: if you knew
the course better than other people, you deserved those 20
minutes if you'd been sure enough to take them. Of course,
the inherent risk is that, if you're wrong and cut the
course, you should get DQed. And as far as ethics go, if I
found out afterward that I was wrong and I actually cut the
course, I'd go up to the referee and turn myself in.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Th-
en it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

 

[Rsquared]

"John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCEBD349.7357%[email protected]...
> This past weekend, I participated in an Olympic distance
> triathlon
organized
> by HFP Racing at Deer Creek State Park in Ohio. The race
> was supposed to
be
> a standard 1500m, 40k, 10k Olympic format but there were
> problems with the course that resulted in the bike leg
> being stretched to nearly 31 miles.
>
> According to the organizer (in an apology issued Monday),
> a volunteer blew their assignment and failed to turn
> competitors around at the correct turnaround point along a
> dead-end state park access road. Not knowing
they
> were supposed to turn around, all of the participants kept
> right on riding until they literally ran out of road in
> the state park's lodge parking lot and were forced to turn
> around and head back.
>
> The entire field followed the same route and I've always
> thought one of
the
> prime principals of triathlon is that no matter the
> course, the weather, a competitor's ability, or other
> circumstances, if everyone rides the same course in the
> same conditions then things are inherently "fair".
>
> On the other hand, USAT rule 5.3 states "The sole
> responsibility of
knowing
> and following the prescribed cycling course rests with
> each participant.
No
> adjustments in times or results shall be made for
> participants who fail to follow the proper course for any
> reason whatsoever."
>
> Here's the rub: a few of us knew during the race that
> something was very wrong. The Pineman IM distance race is
> held on the same course and that race includes 4 laps on a
> 28 mile bike route. Because of this, we KNEW the
> turnaround for a 24.8 mile Olympic distance course HAD to
> be somewhere
short
> of the 28 mile Pineman turn around (certainly no farther).
> There were
cones
> at the correct turn around point, although no indication
> of what they were for.
>
> The question is this: Should those of us (myself included)
> that knew something was wrong have gone ahead and turned
> around? I averaged a
mundane
> 20 mph on the course, so turning around at the correct
> location would have knocked 6 miles off the route and
> given me a 20 minute advantage on the field.
>
> What is the consensus opinion out there?
>
> John
>

I'll respond with a question, "If any other aspect of your
performance (within the rules) demonstrated superior
preparation over the field, should you have voluntarily
held back?"

I did a half marathon in Atlanta last spring. The course
was mismarked
(15.2 miles), but it was an inaugural event - - no one knew
until we were ALL committed.

rsquared

 

[Trihard]

......at least it wasn't as bad as the Californiaman Tri a
few weeks ago, where some of the participants realized that
the bike leg was going to be 117+ miles instead of 112 and
argued with the bike course volunteer at the corner of the
turn onto the last out-and-back leg.....she caved in and let
them 'cut' the course (by omitting that leg)....until the
bike course director came by mid-race and told her to direct
everyone to include the leg....but later in the day the
volunteer started telling people that the course was long by
about 5 miles and the last out and back leg was
'optional'.....i thinks she was tired of standing there and
watching tired bonking triathletes go by.....

.

"John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCEBD349.7357%[email protected]...
> This past weekend, I participated in an Olympic distance
> triathlon
organized
> by HFP Racing at Deer Creek State Park in Ohio. The race
> was supposed to
be
> a standard 1500m, 40k, 10k Olympic format but there were
> problems with the course that resulted in the bike leg
> being stretched to nearly 31 miles.
>
> According to the organizer (in an apology issued Monday),
> a volunteer blew their assignment and failed to turn
> competitors around at the correct turnaround point along a
> dead-end state park access road. Not knowing
they
> were supposed to turn around, all of the participants kept
> right on riding until they literally ran out of road in
> the state park's lodge parking lot and were forced to turn
> around and head back.
>
> The entire field followed the same route and I've always
> thought one of
the
> prime principals of triathlon is that no matter the
> course, the weather, a competitor's ability, or other
> circumstances, if everyone rides the same course in the
> same conditions then things are inherently "fair".
>
> On the other hand, USAT rule 5.3 states "The sole
> responsibility of
knowing
> and following the prescribed cycling course rests with
> each participant.
No
> adjustments in times or results shall be made for
> participants who fail to follow the proper course for any
> reason whatsoever."
>
> Here's the rub: a few of us knew during the race that
> something was very wrong. The Pineman IM distance race is
> held on the same course and that race includes 4 laps on a
> 28 mile bike route. Because of this, we KNEW the
> turnaround for a 24.8 mile Olympic distance course HAD to
> be somewhere
short
> of the 28 mile Pineman turn around (certainly no farther).
> There were
cones
> at the correct turn around point, although no indication
> of what they were for.
>
> The question is this: Should those of us (myself included)
> that knew something was wrong have gone ahead and turned
> around? I averaged a
mundane
> 20 mph on the course, so turning around at the correct
> location would have knocked 6 miles off the route and
> given me a 20 minute advantage on the field.
>
> What is the consensus opinion out there?
>
> John

 

[Imken]

Technically you could make the correct turn. If however I
was racing and I knew my competition was doing the long
course then that is what I would do. If it were a mixed bag
and people were doing both I would opt for the correct
course even if it were the longer leg. If directed over the
wrong course by a race course marshal then of course that is
the way I would go.

Ken @ Kauai

"John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCEBD349.7357%[email protected]...
> This past weekend, I participated in an Olympic distance
> triathlon
organized
> by HFP Racing at Deer Creek State Park in Ohio. The race
> was supposed to
be
> a standard 1500m, 40k, 10k Olympic format but there were
> problems with the course that resulted in the bike leg
> being stretched to nearly 31 miles.
>
> According to the organizer (in an apology issued Monday),
> a volunteer blew their assignment and failed to turn
> competitors around at the correct turnaround point along a
> dead-end state park access road. Not knowing
they
> were supposed to turn around, all of the participants kept
> right on riding until they literally ran out of road in
> the state park's lodge parking lot and were forced to turn
> around and head back.
>
> The entire field followed the same route and I've always
> thought one of
the
> prime principals of triathlon is that no matter the
> course, the weather, a competitor's ability, or other
> circumstances, if everyone rides the same course in the
> same conditions then things are inherently "fair".
>
> On the other hand, USAT rule 5.3 states "The sole
> responsibility of
knowing
> and following the prescribed cycling course rests with
> each participant.
No
> adjustments in times or results shall be made for
> participants who fail to follow the proper course for any
> reason whatsoever."
>
> Here's the rub: a few of us knew during the race that
> something was very wrong. The Pineman IM distance race is
> held on the same course and that race includes 4 laps on a
> 28 mile bike route. Because of this, we KNEW the
> turnaround for a 24.8 mile Olympic distance course HAD to
> be somewhere
short
> of the 28 mile Pineman turn around (certainly no farther).
> There were
cones
> at the correct turn around point, although no indication
> of what they were for.
>
> The question is this: Should those of us (myself included)
> that knew something was wrong have gone ahead and turned
> around? I averaged a
mundane
> 20 mph on the course, so turning around at the correct
> location would have knocked 6 miles off the route and
> given me a 20 minute advantage on the field.
>
> What is the consensus opinion out there?
>
> John