Ironman & Ironman70.3 PE, South Africa 2023

[ChrisF]

51 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? 😋

 

 

Yesterday morning we were glad to see the photos of the flat sea.  Yes, also our friend's challenge ....

 

Was a total surprise when the call came that the start is delayed due to the thunder and lightning.  And shortly there after the call came through the swim was shortened.

 

 

Having done LOTS of swimming, including a lot of sea swims as part of her training she was ready to make up some time here.

 

In the end she made up her time during the second half of the run, when the rain bucketed down.  Having trained in good and bad weather she dug deep and kept her pace.

[olmec]

13 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said:

I would hate for someone to die needlessly because I want to be a full Ironman. 

No, this is still wrong: you cannot abrogate your ambition because of some unknown participants unknown state.  This philosophy leads to socialism, and thats not something I'm compatible with.  You may be, and thats your personal choice.

15 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said:

to think that IM shorten the swim on a whim is the fallacy.

Except they do, the photographs attest to this fact.  Their risk management is so skewed that they are treating every risk as having a certain likelihood.  This lack of appreciation for the dynamic range in risk assessment is causing the race director to err too far on the side of caution.  I'll repeat my earlier quote: "to risk we must."

19 minutes ago, IceCreamMan said:

You cannot accept negligence on the part of the organisers

This statement doesn't make sense; sorry.  Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances.  Indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party to compensate the loss incurred by another party due to the relevant acts of the indemnitor or any other party. In other words "hold harmless for a loss caused by".  

Objectively evaluating a risk, making a determination of that risk, and communication of that risk is far from being negligent.  In fact, on the balance of reasonableness, it is exactly the opposite.

[IceCreamMan]

9 minutes ago, olmec said:

No, this is still wrong: you cannot abrogate your ambition because of some unknown participants unknown state.  This philosophy leads to socialism, and thats not something I'm compatible with.  You may be, and thats your personal choice.

Except they do, the photographs attest to this fact.  Their risk management is so skewed that they are treating every risk as having a certain likelihood.  This lack of appreciation for the dynamic range in risk assessment is causing the race director to err too far on the side of caution.  I'll repeat my earlier quote: "to risk we must."

This statement doesn't make sense; sorry.  Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances.  Indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party to compensate the loss incurred by another party due to the relevant acts of the indemnitor or any other party. In other words "hold harmless for a loss caused by".  

Objectively evaluating a risk, making a determination of that risk, and communication of that risk is far from being negligent.  In fact, on the balance of reasonableness, it is exactly the opposite.

Now onto political systems. 😂

exaclty, so if an organiser is recommended to shorten the swim distance for some reason and chooses to ignore such advice that would amount to negligence and if someone were to suffer an injury or death I dare say they could have a valid case. Just by signing pieces of paper you don’t excuse the organiser of doing whatever they like. I am relatively sure that the organisers took that decision after much deliberation. After all, i think we can agree that thye did not shorten the swim just to piss people off but took various factors into account including time and potential risk  

I don’t work for Ironman, I did not participate yesterday but understand the rationale of shortening the swim in cases where it’s deemed appropriate. Of the many Ironman events I have participated in I only recall 2 occasions where the swim was shortened or cancelled for amateurs. Durban in 2016 ( think it was 2016) was cancelled and only bike run  and Weymouth in 2019 where the swim was shortened. Durban 2016 was justified in my opinion as the pros took a hammering and I think the weaker swimmers would have been In Trouble. WeymoutH was not due to water conditions but fog and again probably justified for safety reasons. 
 

no organiser in the world is going to take on what they deem to be unreasonable risk. The IM course managers are well experienced and well versed on the conditions etc. yes, we can lambast them all day long from the sidelines. That’s easy ain’t it. 

[Andymann]

Of course IM could always just make it a prerequisite that before you can enter for a full distance you need to qualify by being able to complete a swim in a specified time.  Much like you need to qualify for Comrades.  But then one just has to listen to this to realize that anything which might affect the bank balance of Ironman, such as limiting the number of AG entries will never happen and it's much easier to just shorten the route.

 

[dave303e]

25 minutes ago, Andymann said:

Of course IM could always just make it a prerequisite that before you can enter for a full distance you need to qualify by being able to complete a swim in a specified time.  Much like you need to qualify for Comrades.  But then one just has to listen to this to realize that anything which might affect the bank balance of Ironman, such as limiting the number of AG entries will never happen and it's much easier to just shorten the route.

Comrades qualification has nothing to do with distance and capability. It is purely to force you to support the running clubs and marathon organisers. Case and point a- 22hour 100 mile trail run will not qualify you for comrades marathon even though you are doing nearly double the distance at less than double the cutoff time. 

[Mike Nel]

2 hours 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. 

Nail. Hammer. Head

Got an entry for November in Mosselbay. 
 

I already dread the swimming part.

[Shebeen]

13 minutes ago, dave303e said:

Comrades qualification has nothing to do with distance and capability. It is purely to force you to support the running clubs and marathon organisers. Case and point a- 22hour 100 mile trail run will not qualify you for comrades marathon even though you are doing nearly double the distance at less than double the cutoff time. 

meh, that's a bold statement! Then why do they have following multiple criteria for entry?

If you're running trail 100milers, then any of these should be a cakewalk.

 

 

[IceCreamMan]

46 minutes ago, Andymann said:

Of course IM could always just make it a prerequisite that before you can enter for a full distance you need to qualify by being able to complete a swim in a specified time.  Much like you need to qualify for Comrades.  But then one just has to listen to this to realize that anything which might affect the bank balance of Ironman, such as limiting the number of AG entries will never happen and it's much easier to just shorten the route.

 

Agree with this sentiment. And it’s not only Ironman but all the triathlon bodies. There should be a stepped approach before doing the big one. 
 

at least one half or similar gate. Have to agree with that. But as you point out it could affect numbers. 

[Gr3mlin131]

5 minutes ago, Mike Nel said:

Nail. Hammer. Head

Got an entry for November in Mosselbay. 
 

I already dread the swimming part.

Mike, my first was Mosselbay. I am not a good swimmer and the swim was the easy part. Pack your climing legs for both the bike and run. 

 

Good Luck!!

[Shebeen]

2 hours 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. 

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read about Ironman.

Chopper has some advice for these people who can't swim, and are too scared to learn how to swim.

 

[IceCreamMan]

7 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read about Ironman.

Chopper has some advice for these people who can't swim, and are too scared to learn how to swim.

 

Ridiculous maybe.

spot the risks and wait for the penny to drop.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_triathlon_fatalities

[shaper]

How to loose a reputation of the one of the go to races for internationals because of the race, the venue and what use to be one of the best after parties... 

[SwissVan]

5 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

Now onto political systems. 😂

exaclty, so if an organiser is recommended to shorten the swim distance for some reason and chooses to ignore such advice that would amount to negligence and if someone were to suffer an injury or death I dare say they could have a valid case. Just by signing pieces of paper you don’t excuse the organiser of doing whatever they like. I am relatively sure that the organisers took that decision after much deliberation. After all, i think we can agree that thye did not shorten the swim just to piss people off but took various factors into account including time and potential risk  

I don’t work for Ironman, I did not participate yesterday but understand the rationale of shortening the swim in cases where it’s deemed appropriate. Of the many Ironman events I have participated in I only recall 2 occasions where the swim was shortened or cancelled for amateurs. Durban in 2016 ( think it was 2016) was cancelled and only bike run  and Weymouth in 2019 where the swim was shortened. Durban 2016 was justified in my opinion as the pros took a hammering and I think the weaker swimmers would have been In Trouble. WeymoutH was not due to water conditions but fog and again probably justified for safety reasons. 
 

no organiser in the world is going to take on what they deem to be unreasonable risk. The IM course managers are well experienced and well versed on the conditions etc. yes, we can lambast them all day long from the sidelines. That’s easy ain’t it. 

That begs the question, open question to all….who originally recommended shortening the swim, was it the lifesavers or IM responsible person(s) and on what grounds?

Im a pretty average AG swimmer and mass start swims are flipping scary, I’m always the one starting on the outside and taking longest route to and around bouys. How more people have not drowned in triathlons I don’t know, even lake swims….

That being said, I would be a bit pee’d off if I entered an event and ended up doing less than recognized distance

Edited March 6, 2023 by SwissVan

[ChrisF]

37 minutes ago, SwissVan said:

That begs the question, open question to all….who originally recommended shortening the swim, was it the lifesavers or IM responsible person(s) and on what grounds?

Im a pretty average AG swimmer and mass start swims are flipping scary, I’m always the one starting on the outside and taking longest route to and around bouys. How more people have not drowned in triathlons I don’t know, even lake swims….

That being said, I would be a bit pee’d off if I entered an event and ended up doing less than recognized distance

 

Participants got two bits of information:

1. Start delayed for 30 minutes, due to thunder storm.

2. The swim has been shortened.

 

 

Did not hear anything more from those that were there

[Turkey Farmer]

So many keyboard warriors here, while hardly any "regular" hubbers could have even been bothered to take part or even just go to spectate.

At 05:00 the weather was appalling, thunder, lightning, lots of wind. The organizers had to make a call. Delaying by anything more would ha e made it impossible to finish by midnight, which is a hard cut off they face from the city.

I am nursing a torn rotator cuff, so had to sit it out, but was the first time spectating in years, and I take my hat off to the organizers and volunteers. They put on an incredible event, in sometimes very trying conditions. 

 

No one I spoke to was upset about a shortened swim, that's including rank amateurs just out there to finish, as well as two age group winners I spoke to. My better half put in an amazing effort to finish her first, and definitely not last 70.3, and I was on the sidelines with major fomo all day, but can only sing the praises of the organizers.

I  can understand 70.3 athletes being confused about the shortened swim, but those that saw the conditions 90 minutes prior to the IM elite men's start, definitely weren't.

Besides, the lifeguards had already brought the for bouys back in by the time the event started, so even though the conditions cleared, it was too late to revert back to a full swim.

But I'm sure glad to see all the armchair bandits who were probably still snug in bed 500-1000km away from Hobie Beach know better.

 

Maybe the bike event organizers, who can't even seem to be bothered with arranging proper road/lane closures anymore, should take some notes from IM about just how one should go about organising truly world class events. That said, I do think there is some merit in reconsidering the time of year for the SA events, and I think they would do themselves a favor if they drop the Durban event completely.

Edited March 7, 2023 by TurkeyFarmer

[dave303e]

15 hours ago, Shebeen said:

meh, that's a bold statement! Then why do they have following multiple criteria for entry?

If you're running trail 100milers, then any of these should be a cakewalk.

 

 

ok- what they don't say in that table is that they must be ASA or other running governing body events. Ruling out trail running.

Also take and event like Kaapsehoop marathon, which can count as your qualifier. You can probably trip on your laces and roll down the hill to the finish and still qualify. The route drops nearly 1km over the 42km, basically it is down the escarpment all the way to Nelspruit with a slight speedbump near the end. The route literally could not count as a world record because it is too easy. Because it has a massive elevation net loss, and is a point to point race where the start is more than 50% of the distance away from the finish. So the easiest marathon ever can count, but all 100Milers do not count because they are not ASA affiliated. This is not merit based qualifications in my opinion.

5 hours ago, TurkeyFarmer said:

So many keyboard warriors here, while hardly any "regular" hubbers could have even been bothered to take part or even just go to spectate.

At 05:00 the weather was appalling, thunder, lightning, lots of wind. The organizers had to make a call. Delaying by anything more would ha e made it impossible to finish by midnight, which is a hard cut off they face from the city.

I am nursing a torn rotator cuff, so had to sit it out, but was the first time spectating in years, and I take my hat off to the organizers and volunteers. They put on an incredible event, in sometimes very trying conditions. 

 

No one I spoke to was upset about a shortened swim, that's including rank amateurs just out there to finish, as well as two age group winners I spoke to. My better half put in an amazing effort to finish her first, and definitely not last 70.3, and I was on the sidelines with major fomo all day, but can only sing the praises of the organizers.

I  can understand 70.3 athletes being confused about the shortened swim, but those that saw the conditions 90 minutes prior to the IM elite men's start, definitely weren't.

Besides, the lifeguards had already brought the for bouys back in by the time the event started, so even though the conditions cleared, it was too late to revert back to a full swim.

But I'm sure glad to see all the armchair bandits who were probably still snug in bed 500-1000km away from Hobie Beach know better.

 

Maybe the bike event organizers, who can't even seem to be bothered with arranging proper road/lane closures anymore, should take some notes from IM about just how one should go about organising truly world class events. That said, I do think there is some merit in reconsidering the time of year for the SA events, and I think they would do themselves a favor if they drop the Durban event completely.

That was kinda what I was trying to say in my initial post which kicked it all off a bit. My thought was just try massage the dates or locations to make it a more consistent event. It would also make the organisers lives a bit easier long term and safer for the team in general. Nevermind the athletes, the poor lifeguards in the water taking in buoys and setting them out, boats etc.