Well, the 8% and 5% rules were short lived. WTC has recently come out with some amendments to those rules; though no really amendments as they look nothing like the originals. As always, the new rules are not without controversy.
Fortunately, WTC solicited feedback. Whether they listen, truly, or not, is to be determined. I certainly hope they do.
Here is what I had to say to WTC. Feel free to comment. The only way these rules will be good and lasting is if they are well thought thru, and thoroughly debated.
Hello,
I am emailing to offer my feedback on the new, proposed WTC policies with respect to qualification for Kona and Clearwater, and on other corresponding policies.
Let me start by saying that I applaud WTC for giving the professionals the opportunity to comment on the rules that will shape the future of our sport. I realize that WTC is under no obligation to open these proposals up for comment, but as a professional who has significantly altered her professional life in dedication to this sport, I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and I truly hope WTC listens to some of the concerns as well as some of the applause.
I like the ranking system. I like it better than the existing 5% and 8% rules. I think it allows for athletes to earn their place in the World Championships by demonstrating great performance; not just on one day, but all year long.
That said, I do have some concerns with the proposed plan.
• Weighting of points – I don’t think the points reward outstanding performance aptly. I think an Ironman win in ANY scenario is worth more points than the current proposal awards. I think a top-10 finish in Kona is worthy of a heavier weighting as well. I think it’s stunning that a 10th place finish in the world is worth only 200 points more than a 10th place finish in a “Championship” Ironman. Take, for example, this weekend’s IM-Frankfurt “European Championship”. 14 women entered. I think it’s a gross injustice that the 10th place finisher there is awarded only 200 points fewer than the 10th place finisher in our World Championship will be awarded. While still a Championship race, it is simply not of the same caliber (quality or quantity) field as the World Championship. The athletes in the top 10 in Kona have bested the rest of the world on what each athlete targets as his or her best day of that year. I think those performances need greater recognition.
• Ironman points vs 70.3 points – I realize that many of us who are more “Ironman specialists” still race 70.3 races frequently, however, I think that the current points comparison between 70.3 points and full Ironman points rewards the 70.3 athlete more than the Ironman athlete. You simply earn too many points for 70.3 performances that contribute to qualification for a full Ironman World Championship. This is qualification for an Ironman, and as such, I think the Ironman points contributions should be much greater than the 70.3 points contributions; not necessarily in terms of the number of 70.3 races that can contribute to the points total, but to the points that are awarded at 70.3 races. I think that the math should be calculated such that a top-10 finish in Kona coupled with a top 2 or 3 finish in an in-season Ironman ought to be enough to get an athlete to Kona. I think that athlete is more deserving than an athlete who perhaps, even wins 3 70.3 races. It appears from the new policies that Ironman points don’t even contribute to an athlete qualifying for Clearwater, so why should the 70.3 points have such a heavy weighting in an athlete qualifying for Kona? I also think that any Ironman win ought to be sufficient qualification for Kona, regardless of the “Championship”, “$75,000” or “$25,000” designation.
• Tiered Ironmans – I don’t understand this one at all. A $25,000 Ironman? Really? I think that prize purse is far too low for the effort that goes into an Ironman. ANY Ironman. I think that by categorizing these events as such, you will lose quality fields at $25,000 Ironman races. I think it’s also tragic that athletes who have built a loyalty to a “potential” $25,000 Ironman (Bella Bayliss to IM-South Africa, Belinda Granger to IM-Malaysia, myself to IM-Brazil); those loyalties speak to the strength of the race, it’s fans, it’s organizers and the entire community where Ironman’s are held. By banishing Ironman races to the $25,000 category, those loyalties will be lost. It simply isn’t worth the expense of travel, and the few dollars in prize money, and points. For relationships like that to be lost, I think would be tragic and, in the long run, would hurt the “smaller” Ironman races.
• Clarity of process – I think for this points system to work, it is essential that the rankings are made public, are updated accurately (the points example in the email that was distributed had mathematical errors in it – clearly in a “real world” scenario, such mathematical errors would be unacceptable) each weekend following every competition and furthermore, that WTC go back to publicizing pro start lists in advance. This gives every athlete a fair and equal shake at knowing where they stand, who their immediate points competition is and where they are racing. It could lead to some amazing late season head to head points competitions amongst athletes who are “on the bubble”. If I may, transparency has not been one of WTC’s strengths, to date. So I implore you to make this process as open and transparent as possible. It will ensure a “fair fight” for points.
• Timing – September 1 is simply too late a deadline to allow the professionals adequate time to prepare physically or logistically. Lodging in Kona is difficult to come by. If, as a pro, you don’t know if you are competing or not until 9/1, the logistics of planning a trip are virtually impossible. Trip insurance on a plane ticket and rental car is one thing, but with lodging, many rentals are arranged with individual owners. There is no way to recoup that expense, should an athlete be left out, nor is there any way to find reasonable lodging one month before the competition date. I think the points cutoff ought to be made earlier. Either that, or guarantee that the top 25 by July 1 are guaranteed their slot, and the remaining qualifiers will battle it out until September 1. Either that, or shift the entire calendar to a July 1 to July 1 points basis. These potential solutions clearly have shortcomings as well, but I just don’t think it is reasonable for an athlete to not know if they are competing in a World Championship until a month before hand. The preparation that goes into such an effort from a training and psychological perspective, not to mention a logistical perspective cannot be discounted.
• Wild Card – This policy irks me. What all these policies are doing is holding professionals to a higher standard. I think, for the most part, the professional applaud that. Yet simultaneously, WTC has the right to hand pick an athlete who is not to be held to that same standard? Rubbish! Giving an athlete an exemption due to injury, illness or other life tragedy, or even to pregnancy; there is precedent for that. Yet the policy specifically says that the Wild Card is NOT for that purpose. It seems arbitrary, and inequitable. If a higher standard is what WTC asks of its pros, then it should be asked of ALL of its pros. Save your Wild Card for the age group ranks. Invite whomever you like to race in the age group. Let the pros who have equally earned their right to compete, compete.
• 3 year exemption – This policy impacts so few people, it seems silly to mention it, but I feel compelled to anyway. Ironman World Champions are special. And I think they ought to be treated as such. Mandating former World Champions to the Age Group ranks eliminates the opportunity for athletes like Michellie Jones, Karen Smyers and Natasha Badmann from toeing the line in Kona. They cannot compete as age groupers as they are registered pros. Yet their invitation to race as pros is no longer valid. These athletes may have lost their “marketability” to WTC as champions who are past their prime, but to the current athletes who have been inspired by these champions, I believe that having these athletes continue to race in the pro ranks, if they so choose, adds value to the race. Retired former Champions? Sure – they can race with the age groupers if they like. But for current card carrying professionals, they have earned that right to compete amongst the pros regardless of whether they won last year, 5 years ago or 10 years ago. Former champions deserve a spot amongst the pros, if they choose, and should NOT be included in the 50/30 count.
• Logistics – what happens in the event of a rankings tie?
• Logistics - When will races be categorized into the breakdown of Championship vs $75,000 vs $25,000. And how do new races get categorized. Does every IM start as a $25,000 and hopefully grow up to be a $75,000? I think, honestly, there should be WC races, Championship races and the rest are equal. That seems more fair to me, but if not, when will those distinctions be made and how does a race change category?
• Logistics – 50/30 division – how were these ratios determined? How will they change with time?
• Drug testing – The top 20 in world rankings ought to automatically be included in the WTC out of competition testing pool.
• Growth in popularity of the sport – these rules limit an athletes ability to race in races outside of WTC races. I think that’s tragic and will ultimately stifle the growth in the sport. These new race series aren’t competitors to WTC races….WTC is clearly the big fish, but it’s a big ocean and there is plenty of room for other series offering not competing races, but alternative races. These policies don’t allow for professionals to race in other series and that is unfortunate, and ultimately will not enhance the growth in our sport.
In short, I like the points system, but I think it needs to be re-calculated to put the emphasis in the proper places. I also think that in order for these new rules to work; truly work, this process needs to be thoughtful and deliberate, not rushed. It seems that the reason WTC is reworking the 5% and 8% rule is that 1) in retrospect, they may not have produced the results WTC had hoped and 2) they were tremendously unpopular. In an effort to develop a set of rules that work, have athlete and sponsor support, and will correctly produce the result that WTC desires, I beg you to take the time to shape these rules properly. I realize WTC is under no obligation to hear any of this input. I know for certain that the pros appreciate this opportunity to make comment. Current athlete and input on whatever committee decides these issues would be a HUGE step toward a process where everyone wins.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.
Dede Griesbauer
