|
The re-staged winner's pic. Photo: T100
Ironman changes its Kona qualification because they can do whatever they want anyway
When I was at that conference at Stanford a few weeks ago, a couple pioneers in their fields talked about what it was like pre-Title IX. They talked about how there simply was no girls basketball when they were kids so they had no option, and how the high school was forced to add a girls soccer team but didn't give the girls uniforms or let them practice on the actual fields — they practiced in the asphalt lot — because if we let the girls use the fields and the gyms and the equipment then what would the boys use. There are more boys who like sports, that's just the way it is, and so giving the girls the same access to facilities wouldn't be fair.
To a degree, I think most people are able now to see how crazy that was. How unfair it was to those girls.
And yet, every week someone emails me to explain that women just don't want to do triathlon in the same numbers as men and men shouldn't be "penalized" for that. Every time I post something or write something or record something, so many people (fewer than there used to be, I suppose, though it comes and goes in waves) feel the need to tell me: Sure it'd be great if more women did triathlon but right now the women just aren't good enough to deserve equal spots to the championship. If we let them use the gym pier equally, it simply wouldn't be fair to the men.
This was a bad argument 50 years ago, it was a bad argument 20 years ago, it's a bad argument now.
And, yes, I'm aware of all the arguments made about why women shouldn't get equal spots at Kona. They're not actually that different from the old arguments against letting them use the soccer fields. They're all (still!) bad arguments.
The more things change the more they stay the same
Last week, Ironman announced changes to the 2026 Kona qualification process, in response to how badly it was going. And I do appreciate that Ironman (the entity) listened and that individual people there are trying. But I can't help thinking this whole new system was created to solve the original problem xx (participation-based qualification over-penalizes smaller groups), it then created new problems yy and zz (formula-based qualification inherently has pre-existing discrepancies built in and is also antithetical to endurance sports), so now we're adding problem xx back on top.
-
After the age-group winner spots are allocated, all the remaining "performance pool" spots will now be split into two pools for men and women based on men and women's participation numbers at that race.
-
Any age-group winner spots that are turned down will roll into the pool for that gender.
This is retroactive and will apply to the races already run. The 8 more men and 44 more women should be getting an email this week; it will not take spots away from those who already earned them. (There's only ~1950 qualification spots and ~2500 athletes planned for next year; so there's wiggle room. I asked.)
Nothing has changed to address the concerns about most spots going to certain age-groups (50-something men). And nothing has changed to address the fact that the formula is inherently entrenched in the older qualification system and existing biases. (Think of it this way: Only one 80+ woman has ever finished Kona, so there is no standard right now in their system by which to rank 80-something women at qualifying races. Additionally, if there was it would be based against the only woman to have every done it, which means just to make it to Kona you have to be as good as the best 80-something woman in history. See the problem?)
I explained qualification a bunch more here.
In the press release and statement and video from CEO Scott that Ironman put out, there was a lot to unpack. It was, as they say, a "rich text." (Meaning the subtext and word choices were doing a lot of work.)
One of those things is that they kept repeating how this will honor their performance principles of getting "the best athletes" to the world championship.
And I kept thinking: You know how we know who the best athletes are in each age-group? We run a race and the people who finish on the podium in their age-group are the best. And then the way we figure out who was better at this race or that race is we take all those podium finishers from the different races and we send them to a world championship to race against each other to determine who is best in their age-group. That's sorta the whole point of the thing.
Like I said on Fitter Radio, you don't earn a bowl in Kona for how you age-graded ranked according to their formula. And you don't earn a bowl for how you think a 28-year-old woman compares to a 53-year-old man.
It's an interesting debate for a bar. Over a couple of beers: What hurts more, getting kicked in the nuts or menstrual cramps. Discuss. But it's not a debate for a serious legitimate world championship organization to engage in. And, honestly, I don't think Ironman (the entity) really understands how much damage they've already done by choosing to re-engage in the 'who is better a 28-yo woman or 53yo man' debate.
I don't think they appreciate that having so very many people emerge out of nowhere to constantly yell at you 'TRIATHLON IS SUPER WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE, IT'S YOUR FAULT YOU'RE NOT FAST ENOUGH, THE FORMULA HAS SPOKEN,' is just not as welcoming or as fun as it sounds.
|
