Ironman & Ironman70.3 PE, South Africa 2023

[olmec]

2 hours ago, dave303e said:

I think they really need to relook the location or date. I don't know the stats but it seems like most years the swim is shortened or cancelled.

I think the problem is more subtle than that: the race organisers are dealing with the fallout from the loss of life at previous editions of the race.  As a consequence of this their decisioning is driven by an abundance of caution.  Any perceived risk, realised on not, will result in a conservative risk-minimising adjustment to the race.

[saggy]

13 minutes ago, olmec said:

I think the problem is more subtle than that: the race organisers are dealing with the fallout from the loss of life at previous editions of the race.  As a consequence of this their decisioning is driven by an abundance of caution.  Any perceived risk, realised on not, will result in a conservative risk-minimising adjustment to the race.

yup, they do seem to be a lot more cautious than they used to be. I remember 2012, I think it was, the conditions were terrible but the full swim still went ahead.

 

In those days the swim was 2 laps and now it is 1 big lap .... I wonder if that makes a difference with regards safety

Edited March 6, 2023 by saggy

[dave303e]

29 minutes ago, olmec said:

I think the problem is more subtle than that: the race organisers are dealing with the fallout from the loss of life at previous editions of the race.  As a consequence of this their decisioning is driven by an abundance of caution.  Any perceived risk, realised on not, will result in a conservative risk-minimising adjustment to the race.

I am 100% in agreement that safety is number 1 priority, and a cautious approach is admirable given the volume of competitors and varying competency levels especially regarding the swim.

Hence my suggestion- if the weather makes it unsafe and affects the route, is there not a safer time of year or location for the event. I know a few people who have spent thousands and put in hundreds of hours training. Only to sit there at the end of the day knowing they didn't do a full IM and now they have the bug on the shoulder to go back for a full IM knowing the likelihood of a full course is actually not high. 

[DroppedRider]

Why don't they have more IM at dam venues? I mean look at Durban. The amount of cancelled triathlons (70.3's) swims because of dirty water conditions, blue bottles and even wind conditions is getting ridiculous. The events should look at Midmar Dam as their permanent venue. 

[IceCreamMan]

2 of my mates did the half yesterday. Both have done the full previously. Said conditions were challenging at times. 
 

unfortunately the one guys derailleur broke 12 Kay’s into the cycle so that was a hard stop for him. The other finished comfortably and says he enjoyed it. 
 

[olmec]

2 hours ago, saggy said:

they do seem to be a lot more cautious than they used to be

Yes, and this is supported by the repeated number of course shortenings and swim cancellations.

However, here's the rub: at what point is cautious too cautious; and decisions are made in fear and not in an objective evaluation of risk?

I'll leave you with this except from the venerable William Arthur Ward because in many ways it feels like IMSA has become nothing:

But risks must be taken because
     the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.

The person who risks nothing, does nothing,
     has nothing is nothing.

 

1 hour ago, DroppedRider said:

Why don't they have more IM at dam venues?

Because even in this setting the event leadership will find some risk they find untenable and will, out of an abundance of caution, make a risk-minimising decision to <insert modification>.

Edited March 6, 2023 by olmec
added additional detail to the reply.

[IceCreamMan]

It’s all fun and games and words until someone dies. 
 

IM have to cater for the lowest common denominator , in this case the most inexperienced swimmer in the event. Swimming is the leg most people fear the most and probably train the least for thus IM are probably cautious. 
 

If IM were negligent in their approach it would be on them. Rather safe than sorry I guess. And it’s a decision not taken lightly. 

[The Ouzo]

37 minutes ago, olmec said:

Yes, and this is supported by the repeated number of course shortenings and swim cancellations.

However, here's the rub: at what point is cautious too cautious; and decisions are made in fear and not in an objective evaluation of risk?

I'll leave you with this except from the venerable William Arthur Ward because in many ways it feels like IMSA has become nothing:

But risks must be taken because
     the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.

The person who risks nothing, does nothing,
     has nothing is nothing.

 

Because even in this setting the event leadership will find some risk they find untenable and will, out of an abundance of caution, make a risk-minimising decision to <insert modification>.

I DO feel for event organisers in this day and age of snowflakes. In the past, by starting the event, you as a competitor had accepted the risk and you jsut got on with things. Now days if circumstances are out of competitor comfort zones then all sorts of things get thrown out on social media.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.

[The Ouzo]

1 minute ago, IceCreamMan said:

It’s all fun and games and words until someone dies. 
 

IM have to cater for the lowest common denominator , in this case the most inexperienced swimmer in the event. Swimming is the leg most people fear the most and probably train the least for thus IM are probably cautious. 
 

If IM were negligent in their approach it would be on them. Rather safe than sorry I guess. And it’s a decision not taken lightly. 

agree on the swimming part. My mate was worried about the swimming the most. Whilst he had practiced, he never felt comfortable with the mass starts. Added to having an ocean to swim in rather than a dam/lake/pool, he feared the swim more than the 21km run which he had never done before.

[Gr3mlin131]

A lot of the cancelations are also to make sure the lifegaurds can be on duty. I personally do not want to be standing on a paddleboard in the middle of the bay when lightning is striking nearby. Similarly some swims get shortened by having to wait for fog to clear for the lifegaurds to be able to see the swimmers. A lot goes into making sure the participants are safe.

[shaper]

These are the images taken of the swim yesterday, you can find them on Ironman South Africa FB page.

If the sea swim was so bad that it needed to be shortened, why such a long swim straight out and back rather than keep everyone close to shore? i,e swim out 100/200m, swim parallel to the shore for 500/600m and then swim the 100/200m back in to make the 900m that it was shortened to.

If the athletes are swimming that fat out, the have reached the outer buoy where they would turn left, then swim parallel to the shoreline, and following the normal swim course.   See course attached

Yet it was cut short so they swam to the outer red, then past the final red buoy back to the beach.

Am looking for the rough swells? 😋

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by shaper

[The Ouzo]

12 minutes ago, shaper said:

These are the images taken of the swim yesterday, you can find them on Ironman South Africa FB page.

If the sea swim was so bad that it needed to be shortened, why such a long swim straight out and back rather than keep everyone close to shore? i,e swim out 100/200m, swim parallel to the shore for 500/600m and then swim the 100/200m back in to make the 900m that it was shortened to.

If the athletes are swimming that fat out, the have reached the outer buoy where they would turn left, then swim parallel to the shoreline, and following the normal swim course.   See course attached

Yet it was cut short so they swam to the outer red, then past the final red buoy back to the beach.

Am looking for the rough swells? 😋

 

just take a wild flyer here, maybe something to do with the currents ?

[olmec]

39 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said:

IM have to cater for the lowest common denominator

This is a logical fallacy.

If this thinking was correct then the course should be shortened and shortened until, by reductio ad absurdum,  it is easy enough for any entrant to complete (for example, go explore the IronFat debacle for yourself https://truthaboutragen.wordpress.com/).  So, should a full Ironman become a 100 m swim, 10 km ride, and a 2 km walk? Of course not. 

If the organisers accept accommodating the state of the competitor they could do a "race-ready" programme where competitors have to demonstrate some degree of competence before they're allowed to start.  Many ultra trail marathons take this approach.

38 minutes ago, The Ouzo said:

I DO feel for event organisers in this day and age of snowflakes. In the past, by starting the event, you as a competitor had accepted the risk and you jsut got on with things. Now days if circumstances are out of competitor comfort zones then all sorts of things get thrown out on social media.

The terms and conditions are very much to this point. You do accept liability and indemnify all other parties involved.  Folks aren't accepting of this and some always do complain on social media.

Repeatedly shortening a course to the point that the starting field is 20% of what it used to be is surely more damaging?

[SwissVan]

36 minutes ago, shaper said:

 

SNIPPED

Am looking for the rough swells? 😋

 

 

 

 

LOL I can remember Leppin Ironmans (canoe iron man for those that don't know) at Hartbeespoort dam being much rougher than that, so bad that many of the entrants were swimming with their canoes before the start cannon went off.... the good ole days

And then the Durban ultra swim from Vetchies to North beach... swimming parallel to shore for most of the way....that could get a bit rough with strong currents around the various sand banks 

Edited March 6, 2023 by SwissVan

[shaper]

18 minutes ago, The Ouzo said:

just take a wild flyer here, maybe something to do with the currents ?

I and many others have swum this course, currents are generally not an issue here.

Yes there was a passing storm, they delayed the start to wait for it to pass, then shortened the swim. 

From discussing with athletes who raced, they said the swim was good and there were no issues swimming (and somewhat surprised), there was some rain on the bike leg but nothing to stop racing and later in the day another heavy rain shower bucketed down on the run leg.

After the early morning storm which delayed the start there was nothing to really stop the race including the full swim.

[IceCreamMan]

You cannot accept negligence on the part of the organisers no matter how many pieces of paper you sign. 
 

just to be clear on that legal point.  
 

and furthermore. IM have the roads and the infrastructure for a certain period of time. Thus they cannot delay the start indefinitely and therefore easiest to shorten the swim and still have a midnight completion.

 

to think that IM shorten the swim on a whim is the fallacy. It really is a last resort as they want the folks to have the full experience.

 

to be clear, I come from  swim background, got into triathlon as I got fed up chasing black lines in a pool. I would swim in gale force 10 but I have to accept that most folks that do triathlon probably are not strong swimmers and thus happy to cater for them. I would hate for someone to die needlessly because I want to be a full Ironman.