Tokyo Test Event

EC1000

Watched this last night and only realised this morning that the real drama happened after. Crazy decision to DQ the top two finishers who dominated the race. Makes the sport look very petty for the sake of following the rules.

TheBazman

EC1000 wrote: »

Watched this last night and only realised this morning that the real drama happened after. Crazy decision to DQ the top two finishers who dominated the race. Makes the sport look very petty for the sake of following the rules.

Agree seems very petty. Not sure why something similar didn’t happen when one of the Brownlees helped his brother across the line a few years ago.

Serious quality women’s field. I think Carolyn Hayes finished around 30th.

joey100

Just seen that as well. Did the UK have a qualifying criteria as well that if you made the podium you made the Olympic squad? Harsh on the two of them if that is the case. Have heard talk of some countries changing their criteria for the race based on the fast it was shortened to a 5km run.

That's a few crashes recently in ITU events, I know Aaron Royle was complaining about the risks being taken after the last race and saying how unsafe it feels. Zafere's husband had a post about not commenting on the cause of the crash or something like that so I wonder if something similar there.

Ceepo

TheBazman wrote: »

Agree seems very petty. Not sure why something similar didn’t happen when one of the Brownlees helped his brother across the line a few years ago.

Serious quality women’s field. I think Carolyn Hayes finished around 30th.

I'd agree it does seem petty..
I think the difference with Brownlee incident, Ali Brownlee helped Jonny over the line ( this is also against the rules as far as I know) but no right minded official would have pull them up on that one.
It seemed the two Brit girls decided before the line to tie the race.
I think there was some talk in 2012 Olympics warning the Brownlees against doing this is the situation arose..
You'd have to feel sorry for them. Wasn't there guaranteed Olympic start slots going..
Well done to Carylon.. great race.

robinph

Think the Olympic spots for the UK team didn't count as the event was shortened, would have otherwise.

It's far more disrespectful to the sport and other competitors to do high fives, cartwheels, walk across the line, and wave a flag about the place in the finish chute than what they did. They were still "racing" as third was only a few seconds behind, but nothing wrong with what they did.

TriFirst

Daft decision, but since when has a sporting body ever been found to make decisions like this in the interest of commonsense and fair play.

As an aside sad to see Katie Zaferes crash and break her nose, hopefully she can recover asap.

Ribs1234

How did they not know that rule. It is there to stop exactly what they did. No sympathy

robinph

Ribs1234 wrote: »

How did they not know that rule. It is there to stop exactly what they did. No sympathy

Because they had just done a triathlon and the brain doesn't care to process the intricacies of some obscure rule that nobody has had reason to notice previously, and they are a bit knackered, look across, see their friend and team mate next to them, think "yay, we've smashed this getting first and second together", grab each others hands and shout and cheer and jump around in delight.

Wasn't trying to cheat the system in the slightest, just sharing the joy of winning with their mate.

If there was some rule where the 3rd place finisher got an automatic spot in the olympics and they then conspired to both cross the line in 3rd (or some other place) together so that they both got to claim an Olympic spot then there may be reason to DQ them. As it was nobody gained anything they shouldn't have and nobody else would have lost out. The person who crossed the line in 3rd would still have been 3rd regardless of what order they decide to put the first two across the line in.

Ribs1234

robinph wrote: »

Because they had just done a triathlon and the brain doesn't care to process the intricacies of some obscure rule that nobody has had reason to notice previously, and they are a bit knackered, look across, see their friend and team mate next to them, think "yay, we've smashed this getting first and second together", grab each others hands and shout and cheer and jump around in delight.

Wasn't trying to cheat the system in the slightest, just sharing the joy of winning with their mate.

If there was some rule where the 3rd place finisher got an automatic spot in the olympics and they then conspired to both cross the line in 3rd (or some other place) together so that they both got to claim an Olympic spot then there may be reason to DQ them. As it was nobody gained anything they shouldn't have and nobody else would have lost out. The person who crossed the line in 3rd would still have been 3rd regardless of what order they decide to put the first two across the line in.

Even as a beginner to this sport I know that rule. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I agree that motivation should be considered, but as we all know this is a rules based sport with penalties defined for nearly everything. It is also one with monetary rewards for those being pro, and with that comes rules that apply to everyone. The Irish character of reasonableness and it will be grand does not exist in international sport and these two will know that. No sympathy.

EC1000

Ribs1234 wrote: »

Even as a beginner to this sport I know that rule. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I agree that motivation should be considered, but as we all know this is a rules based sport with penalties defined for nearly everything. It is also one with monetary rewards for those being pro, and with that comes rules that apply to everyone. The Irish character of reasonableness and it will be grand does not exist in international sport and these two will know that. No sympathy.

The majority of rules are there for the safety of all competitors and to ensure no athlete gets an unfair advantage. This has nothing to do with either of those aims. The point in this thread is that instead of broadcasting an image of teamwork and togetherness and appealing to the masses, the organisers have decided to lay down the law in the most ridiculous manner and show the sport to be some sort of pedantic rules for the sake of rules show. You'd think they would have learned from the huge viral hit that the brownleses became when Johnny bonked.

The most important rule in any book is discretion as to when to apply the rules.

peter kern

EC1000 wrote: »

The majority of rules are there for the safety of all competitors and to ensure no athlete gets an unfair advantage. This has nothing to do with either of those aims. The point in this thread is that instead of broadcasting an image of teamwork and togetherness and appealing to the masses, the organisers have decided to law down the law in the most ridiculous manner and show the sport to be some sort of pedantic rules for the sake of rules show. You'd think they would have learned from the huge viral hit that the brownleses became when Johnny bonked.

The most important rule in any book is discretion as to when to apply the rules.

I like your post
At the same time they did change the rules after the brownlees incident so they could not do this anymore, and I guess this is where they came up with this rule as well.
The problem I see overall is that itu wants to portray as a sport that is individual. At the same time it allows federations team selection shenanigans which allowes domeatiques to take away slots from athletes that really worked for their spot. Or force athletes to drop back or don't work I'm a pack so their favorite athlete has a better chance .Or the drafting rules for ages they have long given up to try to enforce.
I very much like your argument but then you get inconsistent results as different referees come to different resultsà which is a con to your point.
So it would be better to define those rules better ie when it should apply.

RacoonQueen

My problem here wouldn't be with the ITU, it is with whoever it was that objected. Probably someone who did have something to gain by them being DQ'd.

peter kern

RacoonQueen wrote: »

My problem here wouldn't be with the ITU, it is with whoever it was that objected. Probably someone who did have something to gain by them being DQ'd.

I have not seen any indication that it was not itu that initiated the dq

RacoonQueen

peter kern wrote: »

I have not seen any indication that it was not itu that initiated the dq

All the reports I read said that there was an objection, that would indicate to me another athlete or their coach lodged said objection.

peter kern

do you have a link i googled 5 min and i cant see an article that said that an objetion was made by another federation.

the only thing i can read is that uk appealed the dq by itu , but itu did dismiss it.