Editor’s note: The views expressed in this blog entry are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Triathlete
.
Actually, I added that opening editor’s note to the blog entry. I thought I would save the editors at Triathlete the task of adding it themselves.
Can we be frank for a few minutes? I’d like to talk about a subject that is somewhat sensitive. I do it in the spirit of being inclusive, perhaps more inclusive than those who would take an opposing view.
Before I begin, let’s take a look at some numbers that will shape my opening argument. The 2006 Coeur D’Alene Ironman had over 1600 age-grouper male athletes and 80 Clydesdales participate. Coming out of the water, the male age-groupers averaged 2:01 hundred-meter splits. Their Clydesdale counterparts averaged just a fraction over 2:00 hundred-meter splits. Odds were, as the age-groupers were swimming, there was a Clydesdale just ahead of them at any given point during the swim.
Things were a bit different on the bike and run. While the male age-groupers had a 12-minute lead coming off the bike over their Clydesdale counterparts, (about a 3% difference), the run saw the biggest delta with a 30-minute lead going to the age-groupers.
Still, in the end, the overall difference was 13h 16m for the age groupers, and 14h 01m for the Clydesdales. That 45 minutes represents a 5.36% advantage for athletes under 200 pounds. However, due to the smaller sample size of the Clydesdales vs. the age-groupers sample size, a confidence level analysis (the statistical model that you see used in polls, where one candidate has a lead, ±5% margin of error) reveals a margin of error of 2.26% for the Clydesdales. Therefore, in a true statistical sense, the actual difference between the Clydesdale and age-grouper performance in an Ironman race is as low as 2.5%, or 20 minutes.
Am I missing something here? Do we really have a whole separate division to accommodate a performance difference of 2.5%? Despite the admitted flaws in this analysis, if it is not enough to warrant the end of the Clydesdale division in triathlon, it is at least enough to justify a reasonable discussion.
Let me make something very clear. I am not for excluding Clydesdales. I am for the consideration of the elimination of the division only. While some will argue an attack on the Clydesdale division is an attack on the Clydesdale triathlete, this leaves me at a disadvantage, and without the ability to bring up the subject at all. Also, this position does not imply that I am for the removal of all race divisions. Race divisions based on age, gender, and physical challenges should be maintained due to the fact that these athletes have absolutely no control over these conditions.
And that is where is gets sticky. I won’t discuss whether a Clydesdale can control whether they are over 200 pounds or not. An athlete’s weight is completely personal, and should be determined by the athlete and their doctor. In fact, I hate athletes even asking me about how much they “should” weight. Body composition should be the over-riding measurement in a healthy athlete.
So let’s say that we should keep the Clydesdale division because, like age and gender, the athlete cannot control a condition that puts them at a disadvantage compared to other triathletes. Forgetting for the moment that the performance difference is as low as 2.5%, which is much lower than the difference between the genders.
Then why stop there? Why have we limited our sympathies to athletes over 200 pounds? What about short athletes? Why is there no Shetland division? These athletes have no control over their condition. The short triathlete may be lighter, but that athlete must deal with smaller paddles and pistons than their heavier but taller counterparts. Archimedes said, “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand, and I could lift the world.” I say, “Give me a 34-inch inseam and I could lift a Clydesdale frame enough to improve my bike performance by 20%.”
How about a Mason-Dixon division? For those athletes who live above, in northern climates. These athletes lack the advantage of year-round outdoor training. What about a financially-challenged division, for athletes not fortunate enough to be born in a country where they can afford the expensive equipment and training time that is, regrettably, necessary for the fastest times.
None of these conditions are reasonably within the athletes’ control, and yet why does the Clydesdale division receive this special class? The answer, of course, is tradition. Like Tevye in
Fiddler on the Roof, we have the division because we have always had it. It was inherited from our athletic forefathers.
The irony of the Clydesdale division is that it even unfair to other Clydesdales. A 250-pound Clydesdale is often competing against a 201 pound Clydesdale. The performance delta between the lightest and heaviest Clydesdale is likely the greater than most deltas between any other race division. On paper, if our goal was to really be fair, there should be multiple Clydesdale divisions at 20-pound increments.
The difference between a whiner and a progressive is the whiner will complain about the situation without offering a new solution. So let me offer a solution. Let’s replace the Clydesdale division with a Non-Competitive division. This would have the advantage of allowing any triathlete to participate who may have an athletic disadvantage. Short athletes, tall athletes, heavy athletes, first-time triathletes, bankrupt athletes, athletes from Alaska, Democrats, Republicans. This new division would also accommodate the one reason I do like the Clydesdale division. We need a division to encourage athletes to participate who might not otherwise feel comfortable participating with other athletes, for whatever their personal reason.
And this is why this proposal is more inclusive than the status quo. We only have one division to accommodate the “shy” athlete today. Merging the Clydesdale division into a Non-Competitive division encourages the light-but-hesitant participant from every corner of life to become a triathlete.
So bring me your bring me your tired, your poor, your short and your heavy. Just don’t create a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place trophy for every one of them.
A further discussion of weight and Ironman racing performance can be found in Episode 23 of the Tri Talk Triathlon Podcast.