I'm just letting off some steam here - I'm ropeable that the gatorade tri-series offers a clydesdale category (men over 95kg) but refuses to offer the equivalent athena category (women over 70 or 75kg). Their story this year (after saying last year they would 'take my comments into account') is
1. There isn't enough demand for the athena category
2. there is no minimum number required to run a category
(am I the only one who finds this a bit illogical?)
Many newbies to the sport aren't aware of the athena classification, so how can they tell if there's any interest if they don't offer it? Apparently they will gauge interest through the post-series competitor survey - I wonder if there will be a specific question about clyde/athena categories b/c I don't recall one last year.

Of course, being not-so-svelte, I have a keen interest in this topic, but I do think there should either be both clydesdales and athenas or neither.
*fumes*
thanks for listening to my rant - and if you are doing the gatorade triathlons - which are great fun and really well run!- please make sure to comment on this matter when you get your survey

Having started life as a ZZZ 100+ clyde (now 86.5), I think the category is such a great concept. From memory Athenas is usually 80+ kilos though. I noticed at the Gold Coast Half they had both Clyde divisions (90-100 and 100+) but no female division which I noticed and found strange. Is there an online survey for this? I wont be attending any of that series but I support the division idea more than probably anybody.

I don't want to open a can of worms but is USM running the series?

Seems silly to have this category to me. Why stop there, maybe a category for people who like to get drunk on Fridays, come from land locked countries, a smokers category, and a cake addicts category as well. 1st to cross the finish line should be the only category that matters in my opinion.

Kipketers, it is a bit different to that. Based on your theory, there should be first, second and third and the rest are just numbers. No Age groups, no male or female, just the three. In a truely competitive sense, you may be right but as far as the realities of triathlon performance, heavy weight divisions have their place. I went from a 6.17 half IM to a 4.43 half IM from 115 kgs to 86.5kgs. I am the last person that will buy your argument that 'it does not matter'.

Plazbot, I should've elaborated. Yes there definitely should be gender and age categories, in my opinion U/20's, over 40's increasing in 10 year age brackets. Well done on dropping the weight, you are out of contention for the proposed category but maybe moving towards age group contention. Keep up the good work!

Edit: Craig Walton is 82kg's, if he decided to make less sacrifices ie train hard, watch diet, then he would be a clydesdale.

You know, I hesitated to post this thread becuase I feared it might turn into another 'heavy people are lazy and slack and should be vilified'- fest. Unfortunately I was right.

This is not about judging people based on whether they are heavy or slow. This is about the fact that there is a standard weight-based classification in triathlon which is being offered to men and not women in Melbourne's biggest triathlon series.

It encourages more people to enter by giving them a more comparable category to compete in, and that's a great thing.

Spectators generally only care about the winners in the male and female open categories, which is fine, but there's nothing wrong with the competitors getting a little something extra to pat themselves on the back about! :-)

Its hard to cry foul on a running website as I don't think there are any running races in Australia that even have a clydesdale category. (and if there are some examples they must be a 1% minority). So triathlons with a clydesdale (even if no athena) are still leading the pack. (bad though it is to have different grades for the different sexes)

I think organisers should have this class in triathlons. Doesn't add much to prizes. Not asking for a new car (I assume).

It has been around for many, many, many years.

I have however always thought that athena /clydesdale rules are flawed.

B.M.I would be much fairer. A person tall in statue has a unfair advantage over a shorty.

The taller person has less body mass, therefore is more likely to perform better based on the tall and short person being equal in fitness and running/ cycling/ swimming technique.

thomo

do newby competitors really assess races by which ones they are likely to win a prize in ? I find it hard to believe.

Clydesdales originally evolved as a come and try type category. It is such a good opportunity to get people up off the couch and into the pool and out running/riding in preparation. At 6'4" myself and only 3 or so kilos under the weight, I could pretty easily eat my way up into the division but know who it is intended for. There are of course burglars who have 6% body fat but make the weight and enter taking the prize every time. I train with the bloke who won Clydes at Coomera and he is a legitimate Clyde and fast to boot. I think eventually BMI is going to have to become the criteria for entry though as more and more people are entering the category for 'glory' as well as those shorter people who have the weight issues as well.

Remember, we are talking about 10 or 15 people here not a sudden influx of 1500 new entrants in 30 new categories. I tend to see the people who have a problem with the division are those who are the same ones who turn up late to races, move your bike in transition, cut in line, think the guy with Zipps is a 'poser' but would cut off their nut for a set, so on and so on.

It is a shame the topic went this way and I promised myself I would not bite

To the original topic, firstly I didn't realise you meant Melbourne and secondly, I agree that for such a huge series they should have the division especially in the enticer distances. It is all about growing the sport. Not only are extra people turning up for these divisions but their kids are coming along as well and seeing that people do things other than watch TV and sleep off a hangover on weekends. The self esteem side is massive as well. These people will be telling their work mates that they are going off to do a triathlon on the weekend and will get a buzz going around themselves. It is all too easy to forget that running and triathlon are very foreign things to those who don't do them and unfortunately many fall for the 'elitist' trap where the grass roots are forgotten.

agree with Kev on this, nonelites usually race to improve their PB's (hard actually in tris to have PB's), or to beat some kind of standardor created limit - like beat the train or steamboat etc, or to get qualifier for 6ft etc, and those who are realistic can always check their running times against the age grading of the masters tables so the % number is comparable across the years of age across the genders and accross the racing distances, again all impossible in tris.

But I also doubt that people will do the race and train for the race to get some kind of some category medal for placing
all that mean, than on the day there was nobody better in that category who bothered to turn up
( I have 2 gold medals from VIC masters, since nobody in my age group turned up on a day)

However I understand what Alison is saying - how come the category is there for men and not for women ?

that was the question .

perhaps there are some conflicts as the men are often proud to list in heavy category, however the women might not be in the same attitude ?

on the weight in athletics topic _ I would like if all throws - shot put, hammer, discuss, would be clasified as distance per kg body weight.

In the sports where there is used the iron weight, the athlets are divided in weight categories - weightlifting, powerlifting,
and even where the ironi is not used - boxing, wrestling, etc.

so athletics is not very fair in this respect.

this can be done without going into weight issue.

Powerlifting has so called novice category - so perhaps You can race the TRI for 1 season only in this category.

athletics back in comunism era had a nonregistered athlets category, wher the only condition was that - You are not registered athlet, not memebre of any club, the races were very popular usually road and trail runs of various distances but also some occasional track races, organized as teams comp between city suburbs etc to show the nonelite sport participation etc. Once You register, You cant come back.

That is taking ignoring you to a new level



So Rudolf you would have to use a feather duster in the jav. Otherwise you would have trouble lifting the implement

Again this is unfair using weight as sole criteria. Smaller people in fighting divisions could have an unfair muscle advantage over taller people. Heavy people in hammer throw having poor technique having to throw further than a lighter person with a much better technique.

I agree entirely however it is a division that as it stands has so many good things going for it and I agree with the topic starter that it should be there for both men AND women.

Athletics is a very different animal. I am betting very few, if any people sitting on a couch think to them self that they are going to get up and go and train for the 400m. Many do however want to get up and go around at a triathlon. Whether they do weight divisions in athletics or knitting or horse racing does not matter. Take the boxing analogy. Is it a fair fight with a 70 kilo 22 year old v a 70 kilo 70 year old? No, and this is why sports like triathlon while fiercely competitive at the sharp end can and do have the facility to allow others to play as well without influencing or affecting those who are playing for the big prizes.

I would think comparable means more like "there are people doing this who look more like me than whippets" than "I think I can win this", with due defference to Plazbot's comment about burglars. I've always seen it as more about inclusion.

And yes, if they include the male category they should include the equivalent female category.

md

I have decided to lodge a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission. This is clearly discrimination on the grounds of sex, and after a look at the criteria for exemptions, I don't think they apply (especially since I'm allowed to complete as an age-grouper).
I'm certainly not arguing about this so I can win anything - I'd most likely be DFL in an athena class as well as an age-group! It's the principle of the thing, and fact that older, bigger women need all the encouragement to participate in sport that they can get!

I am a bit confused about one point - can you still enter the event if you are in the weight category that they don't have? Or are they saying "Sorry, we don't have a weight class for you. Bugger off"?

I can - and probably will have to - enter in my age group.

But that isn't my point. Men are being offered a category that women are not.
The organisers claim there is not enough demand for it, while on the other hand telling me there is no minimum number to run categories. I wonder if they'd cancel the over 65 class if there were only two entrants? Or is it just lardy chicks they discriminate against? (as you can tell I am livid about this, especially since I got yet another condescending email from supersprint today)

Please lodge a complaint on my behalf about the organisers of Ironman Oz and the Sydney Marathon Festival. I am a sprinter and neither of these events cater for my lack of endurance, i am clearly being discriminated against. Please tell me you aren't really that precious, start your own series if you're not happy.

Now now, no need to get personal
Here is the EOC page.

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.a...20the%20law.asp

I understand why you are annoyed - but I understand the organisers point of view as well - why should they create a category with one or two entrants? Also consider that your complaint to the Human Rights Commission may just create one more barrier and add more cost to events like this in the future

So we have had our first Gatorade race in Melbourne, what ended up happening? Was there a category for women?

I got a call from the Equal Opportunity Commission - Supersprint 'decided' to have an Athena category after all
Hmmm it wouldn't have had ANYTHING to do with my informing them I planned to lodge an EO complaint, nonononono........
Doesn't matter why they did it, it's just great they are offering equal conditions to men and women. Now any heavier women who've thought about doing a tri - no excuses!

can't wait to see the weigh in...

to most women their age and weight is a national secret !!

" do I have to nominate an AG?"

I agree if you are going to offer a category for men then it should be offered by women. When it comes to even having categories then it is not just about winning. Many people look at how they place within their category (EG. at half way) and try to improve on that. If you are in the 55 to 60 category then overall placings are pretty irrelevant. You do not have to be winning to be interested in categories. I see nothing wrong with having a weight division category. It has created some interest in the men so maybe it would do the same in the women.

There is a response from the SuperSprint organisers on the equivalent post on Transitions

Here is the post anyway.

Well I must say this is very upsetting.
This is the first I have heard about my 'insisting' on a mediation meeting. I was not informed of any such thing by the EOC. Nor did Supersprint contact me before posting this cpmment on Transitions. I am very disappointed by this response, to be quite honest, when I have never had any criticism of Supersprint other than that they offered a particular competitive class to men and not women.
BTW the post on Transitions which has led to this began with my advising the forum that the Athena class had been re-introduced and could they mention it to anyone who was interested - more or less free advertising for Supersprint.
I feel really bad about this All I was trying to do was create a fair environment so more people would have a chance to enjoy triathlon.

Wow. I seriously cant believe what I have just read?
Some people perhaps spend a little bit too much time on the computer and not near enough time out training?
There are so many things in life that simply are not fair? Ah well, get on with life?
Is it fair that women demand and get equal prizemoney in tennis, even though they play less sets and there is clearly way less depth? Is it fair that at the Commonwealth Games, in some womens track cycling events, there were 5 people in some races, so you only had to beat 2 others and you win a medal? Is it fair that insurance companies can discrimnate against drivers depending on age and sex, but not on race?
I could go on, but I need to get to sleep so I can get up and train in the morning rather than worry about what categories they will or will not have and if it will suit me or discriminate against me at the next race I do!
To the person who started this topic, I really hope your happy with what you achieved, and perhaps persue a political career in addressing a lot more of life inbalances, perhaps some more important ones!

Originally posted by alisoncj:
"I'm certainly not arguing about this so I can win anything - I'd most likely be DFL in an athena class as well as an age-group! It's the principle of the thing, and fact that older, bigger women need all the encouragement to participate in sport that they can get!"

You say it is the principle of the thing. Honestly, would the principle still be important to you if you were a size 6?

Originally posted by alisoncj:
"I feel really bad about this All I was trying to do was create a fair environment so more people would have a chance to enjoy triathlon."

Honestly, if you have these altruistic notions of more people enjoying triathlon, will you be volunteering to help out at this or any other race? Adding another category requires effort, and a category based on weight requires more effort than one based on age, which for starters doesn't need a verification process on the morning of the event. Will you be a volunteer at the weigh in?



This perplexes me. Seems you are trying to play the victim here. David's post cleary does not say that you were 'insisting' on a mediation meeting. As a matter of courtesy, please don't use quote tags unless you are actually quoting. Dave's response says "When they also understood that we had age categories for that competitor, they didn't seem to think it was unreasonableb but still wanted to have a mediation meeting.". The pronoun 'they' is obviously referring to the good folk at the EOC. When you make a complaint, it's their job to try and resolve it. Mediation is one of the steps in this process. They wanted the meeting because you instigated the complaint and they were following their processes.

At the end of the day, yes, it would be nice to have an Athenas category if there is a Clydesdales. However, I don't see Daivd Hansen driving off from this series into the sunset in a brand new beamer with a bag full of cash. I see him as a bloke who is putting a whole lot of work into the sport for probably little reward. Despite the rhetoric of your quote "All I was trying to do was create a fair environment so more people would have a chance to enjoy triathlon." ... I see Dave doing a bucketload more than you for the sport. Next time, rather than going off with your guns blazing to the EOC, stop and think. If you really want to make a positive contribution to the sport, I'm sure a conversation with David along the lines of "I see this as an area of improvement. What can I do to help?" - would have been a lot more fruitful.

Food for thought.

Unc

I must say that as a race director, and a runner, that I have this yearning to make the sport simpler not more complex. In the Six Foot Track Marathon we have added more and more categories (thankfully not a clyde or athena) and it brings more and more grief every year. However we have over 70yr old categories and there are males each year but no females so we bin the female trophy (mm maybe my wifes mother got last years). Some things a RD just has to write off if there are no or few contestants.

Its a bad move to have one category for males and not for females - the prize needn't be that big and the results are computerised so its not a big deal really to have another category - particularly if it stops all the arguing.

It is still wrong to have a category for men and not for women.

That is the reality of our culture.

If there are so few women who are eligible for the category then they should drop the weight limit that is required.

Alisonjc did nothing wrong bringing this to the attention of the EOC when the organisers remained intransigent.

What next?
Will a Male competitor complain that they now have a category for females over70kgs but he must weigh over 95kgs before entering a weight category.

That's hardly equality is it

Great response from Uncle Dave, a very busy runner who has time to volunteer with more than one organisation.

Complaints highlight inadequacies (sometimes), but its hard work from volunteers that make it work.

Hi Alison,

I hope you mean that some of the comments from other posters are upsetting rather than the response from the Supersprint organisers (which I posted because it is always better to hear both sides of the story).
I can see entirely your reasoning for wanting a class for Athenas given that there is a Clydesdales category. But I think that the response from Supersprint is entirely appropriate and I hope that you can see their point of view. In my opinion going to the EOC over this issue was unwarranted and I think that maybe the reason that some people are putting forward some of the more negative posts.

My 2 cents is that I agree with what you were trying to do but completely disagree with how you went about achieving your purpose.

There is not less depth in women's tennis. I have to take objection to that, I love watching women's tennis because it is not just power that is the focus there's so much strategy. Some of the women's matches turn out lasting close to as long as a man's when they run over a long time. There have been some amazing women's matches in tennis I wish they did play three sets so they lasted longer. They have every right to demand as much money they are putting as much effort in and putting on a brilliant show and drawing the audience.

Ok so now that I have hiijacked satisfactorily off on a tangent about women's tennis I figured I might reply to the actual post.

I would consider myself a feminist. Usually I get quite fiery about men have this and women not that well as can be seen in my reaction to the women's tennis slight. And I guess of a category for one sex and not for another I should think oh, that's not fair. But then I start considering what the category is.

Weight is a very sensitive issue I think it is an awful thing to create categories on. For men being heavier is generally valued or chortled about, for women being heavier is something you would rather not have drawn attention to and can graze at some women's very being and it seems to me a strange battle to have it made obvious. It would be better to abolish both and let people's size fall out of the equation.

I find weighing oneself one of the most confronting things and to do it in public horrific because no matter how it might meant to be viewed it immediately causes people to judge and classify and it seems to me an uncomfortable division to have. To be over a certain weight range and compete it takes enough courage as it is without being singled out into that category. It is almost singling people out for competing well for that size not just making everyone on an equal footing with everyone else. It seems counterintuitive to equality.

Some battles for feminism are worth fighting but I don't know about this one it just seems like making trouble over something that when granted does no more good and perhaps creates more controversy and further headaches for the organisers. It might alienate women who are heavier who are uncomfortable with their size from competing because they feel they have to weigh themselves and have their weight publically broadcast.

I'm sure that the whole business didn't evolve from the intention at being discriminatory against the other sex so I'm not sure I agree it should be so bitterly attacked as it was. Although I understand the anger at a felt injustice (I felt that same reaction to the comment on women's tennis) I guess the frustration comes with the feeling there was maybe no consideration. Once considered I think you get less of a headache abolishing weight categories altogether than introducing a new one.

I know this is way off topic, I was just using a quick example that came into my head....but.....
Are you serious??? Sorry, but there is way less depth in womens tennis than mens? I think even the women who play in the WTA would accept that? You only have to look in the early rounds of a grand slam, and see how many of the higher ranked women win 6-1 6-0 or other similar scores over the lower ranked girls. You dont see it happeneing as often in the mens. The 100th ranked women has basically no chance and it would very very rarely happen that they would beat a player in the top 10, where as in the mens it does happen. The difference between the 5th best man and 100th best man is a lot less than the same ranked women. As for power, I said nothing about women having less power? Often you see Williams or even Stosur serving as hard as Hewitt?
I also love watching all forms of tennis, and yes often the womens are better to watch, longer rallies etc, but, there still is no where near the depth and they shouldnt get the same rewards. Any sporting achievements should be judged in my opinon on the depth of competition. A womens track cycling medal for example should never ever be held it the same regard as for example the mens road race medal.....but to show the other side of the fence, making the australian womens netball team should hold a lot higher regard than say the australian mens track cycling team?? But that could be another complete topic?

I'm really not feeling like getting into this with you because I don't agree at all.

Women tennis players play as hard and train as hard for their money as men, they can't be blamed for what competition they are confronted with or how it is organised.

Maybe they should campaign to play three sets as well I don't know.

You should be rewarded for the effort put in. I don't know how it is all organised I just know what I enjoy watching.

I did not mean to imply I thought tennis players had less power anyway I only mentioned that because usually that is the put down I have heard by discussions of it. I've always been blown away by the strength of venus williams and other players.

I'm not really knowing what you mean by less depth anyway and I really don't understand how you rate things. There just shouldn't be a different rate of pay for men versus women full stop. Both are human beings, both are devoting their life and time to the same thing they should receive the same reimbursement.

Anyway I did end up getting into this, damn oh well. I'm just leaving it at I love women's tennis, I enjoy watching it much more than men's tennis and I don't see any reason why it could be said to have less depth.

Surely a large amount depends on what type of other competition is around at the time anyway, that can't really be fixed fairly in a competition. You can't guarentee how great the players are going to be around at the time.

There have been times when higher ranked players put up fantastic fights against lower ranked players in women's tennis. Amanda Coetzer versus Steffie Graff, Arancha Sanchez Vicario versus Chandler Reubin.

Unfortunately most of my examples are not current to now as I haven't kept up with tennis the last few years.

I don't think people should be paid less just because on the day they come up against someone who isn't as skilled or experienced as they are, I mean that is all up to chance.

It just depends on the wealth of talent around at the time and how it all gets shaken up.

Ultimately they are all there to do the same thing and should all get the same reward at the end.

[quote name='felisaffie' date='Dec 3 2007, 08:30 PM' post='278711']
Sorry kept thinking and came up with a clearer idea of my actual argument. Tennis is a spectator sport. The men draw spectator's for one reason, women for another but both with the same result of a broader range of viewers so both should be paid the same.

Pete Sampras always used the lack of depth concept for his support of more pay for men. His career unfortunately was a fine example of the opposite. He was rarely troubled in a grand slam. If there was more depth then he would have lost more. One year before wimbleton he was sprouting this myth when the top four mens seeds made it to the final and the top two women were out in the first round. How many unseeded men make it to the finals of a grand slam. A lot more women can do it I reckon. That is a good argument for more depth in womens tennis. I still think they should play five sets though.

Payment in sporting competition has nothing whatsoever to do with skill, talent, depth or number of sets. It's about bums on seats and if the women can fill a stadium they should be paid the same as the men. If you don't believe me, take a look at football (soccer). The Australian women's team have a better record than the men in big competitions and yet I don't think ANY of them are professional players because for whatever reason not as many people want to go to watch. Actually, you don't even need to compare men with women. Just look at the recent match between Sydney FC and LA Galaxy and ask yourself why David Beckham is paid as much as he is.

In any profession where men earn more than women - and that would be pretty much all of them - men can find a reason to justify the inequity. Go figure.

md.

If you paid athletes purely on the depth of the competition the Australian Mens Cricket team would all be broke. But the fact they sell out stadiums (especially in one dayers) and draw in TV ratings, sponsors fall over themselves to be involved, hence they are all very well paid.

Tennis is the same. Basically mens tennis rates higher, thats why The Australian Open Mens final is on Sunday night, because its the highest rating night of the week. The more people watch the more sponsors will pay.
Women being paid less than men has nothing to do with depth, power or 3 sets vs 2. Its purely down to how much sponsors are willing to pay. The NSW International is one of the few tournaments that actually pay the women more than the men. This is becasue it attracts higher ranked women than men, so the womens matches are watched by more people so they get paid more.

Ah well, I guess we all have to agree to disagree on this one?
Just a few more thing quickly....women in grand slams play best of THREE sets, Men play best of FIVE, i think a few people were quoting something slightly different???
oh, a fair way to distribute prize money, and this was the way it used to be done by some clubs when I raced motorcycles, was a percentage of the entry fee received went in prize money? So for example, i you have 100 entries in the mens category of your given event, and 10 in the womens, the winner of the mens event will obviously get a lot more money for winning??
So that could mean if it were applied to running, the winner of the womens city to surf would get more than the mens winner!!!!!! Oh, thats right, there isnt any money for that race!

Oh, getting back on topic, did the lady who started this topic race on the weekend? I think it was race 2 of the series?
Give us a race report!!

Now I could agree on you on that, it would seem much more fair. I do understand tennis is best of three for women and five for men, I must have said that part confusingly in the previous post , Sorry.

Alisoncj raced today.

1st Athena.

http://www.lbtepa.blogspot.com

The Clysedale/ Athena thing is a joke for 1 reason which has already been mentioned:
A male that is 6'4+ that has a reasonable amount of muscle will be, let me guess, 90 - 95kg.
Ditto for a woman that is 5'10+.
So - is that fair - no!

I speak with good insight.
I did Noosa Olympic Ditance Tri a few years ago, weighing 88kgs. Won my age group in 1"57, beat Emma Carney...
I felt emabarrsed for them when I saw the Clysedales (6"4+), prancing around with their medals after a 2"20 odd performance...
I am 5"10!

My tip - race the clock & just appreciate your achievements for what they are!
If you have alot of body fat & race triathlon/ fun runs - good work!
If you want to go quicker, work on losing body fat!