USAT AAC

 

I've been pummeled with feedback from people regarding the elite requal issue, so I'm pasting the emails anonymously.  Please read these.  I think you'll find them valuable.  I hope that our current Board reps, Joe, Andy, and Mark, along with the AAC, can take a look at this before the board meeting and make a decision that will best serve our sport.  Thanks in advance and I miss you all!

 

FYI, I am a retired triathlete (last race was in 2005), but still hold my pro card until the end of the year because I love the sport.  Hip surgery took me out of the 2004 Olympic Trials and I'm no longer doing triathlon because I still have hip problems (open water swimming is my game now - English Channel, baby, here I come!).  However, people have told me they are afraid to say anything about pro requal, and since I have no skin in the game, I'm happy to speak up for the masses and serve as your advocate as long as I'm able.  (And yes, I've been both beaten, battered, and smattered AND loved, cheered, and heralded for doing this in the past, but I'll continue as your unofficial punching bag as long as y'all want a voice!)

 

Back in 2004, when I served on the Board, I felt pressure from the National Team Director to initiate a pro requalification standard.  She felt that if one was a pro, one wasn't always "qualified" to be a pro if the person did not meet a certain "pro" standard, especially after being a pro for many years without "results."  So we attempted to create a "pro" standard.  And we did.  And it passed.  And, as of now, effective December 31, 2007, if elites who have had their elite/pro card since 2005 have not completed one race with 500 people or more and finished within 8% of the winning person's time (and submitted it to Katie), they can no longer be pro/elites starting January 1, 2008.  We looked at many angles, from pro feedback to races to how realistic it was.  It seemed like a good idea to "raise" the standard for elites.

 

This idea was tossed around like a fruit salad and many were opposed.  Some were in favor.  We knew we'd have to readdress it after the dust settled.  Now, I'm wondering, if an elite doesn't make the cutoff requal time, can they simply go back to the age group ranks and immediately requalify to be a pro for 2 more years?  Also, if someone is a Top 10 finisher in pro races, but only competes in 3-5 races per year and DOES NOT fall within the 8% range of the winner, they are out too.  An athlete who qualifies to race pro at Kona does not make the 8% range, and is, therefore, out for 2008 and beyond.  And one more, how about ALL of the retired pro triathletes who are still involved in the sport?  They have a lot of valuable experience, but cannot be involved with pro issues anymore.  Wouldn't it be awesome to have someone like a Dave Scott or Siri Lindley helping to lead the way on the pro issues, so that active athletes can focus on racing?

 

So, I'm reviewing the possibilities and am trying to make sense of all of this.  Please respond with your comments!  If you're not comfortable emailing them to the e-lite beat for the world to see, just send them to me and I'll post anonymously.  And when you press "reply," remember to delete the e-lite beat address and replace with mine.

 

Cheers!

Susie Gallucci

 

___________________________________________________________

Susie-
I think with the more difficult qualification standards that are being proposed there is not any need for re-qualification.  If we look at cycling, which has a more established system in place, they actually make it more difficult to downgrade than it is to upgrade.  Once you are a Cat. 1 cyclist, you have that designation for as long as you like.  With a young sport like triathlon, I feel like narrowing the number of athletes at the top will decrease the level of competition and thus the amount of prize money races will be willing to put up.  It isn't as if many of the larger, classic triathlons (St. A's, Chicago, LA, etc.) are filling up their professional fields.  Lifetime Fitness has, I believe, 16 women on the start list... That means more are going home with paychecks than without!

Additionally, the 8% seems like an arbitrary number anyway.  I am one of the 'elites' who is more or less on the bubble.  If I spend a lot of money racing the rest of this season, I'm sure I can re-qualify.  But I feel like my time and effort would be better spent training and racing to establish myself as a respected elite rather than chase around an arbitrary time qualification in order to keep racing elite for the next two years.  If I was fast enough in USAT's estimation 3 years ago, and I'm much faster now than I was back then, I'll be taking a HUGE leap backwards if I'm forced to go through the qualification process all over again next year (especially if my interest lies in ITU racing, where age-group athletes get zero experience).
I don't want to be too vocal about this, as it has a direct effect on me for sure.  I don't really see the need or understand the motivation to have this process in place.  The net effect will only be to widen the already large gap that exists between elite athletes and age-groupers.

_______________________________________________________________

Hey Susie,

I hope you are doing awesome!

I am not one to post to the group, but I thought I would share with you my thoughts on the current pro re-qualification criteria.
 
I believe it is this: must present one result finishing with 8% of winning time at one race with a prize purse of more than $5,000.

Here is my personal situation...and it likely has similarities to other mid-pace pros.

I reviewed my results from '06 - none of them meet the criteria.
Either the races I placed high in did not have prize money or enough prize money or
I fell outside of the 8% time margin.
By the way, the longer the races are, the more difficult it is to be within that 8%!

In looking at this year's results (outside of duathlon), I have not met the 8% requal criteria.
Again, I HAVE placed high in some races (but not enough prize money - ie $4999).

Looking at what I have remaining for the year:
-one race has no prize money - Santa Barbara Long Course
-Cancun 70.3
-ITU Long Course duathlon World Championships
(doesn't matter since I already met the du requal)
-Ironman 70.3 World Championships

It is entirely possible that I may not meet the time criteria.
You would think that I must be worthy of racing professionally if I can qualify for the world championships and hold my own in races. I may not win and currently may be closer to the back of the pack, than the front...but isn't there always a front/middle/back? :)

Of course I am training to do my best, but I can not control what the top athletes do.

Also,  consider this...

In looking at my first race of the year, I determined that most of the field would not have met the requal criteria... (look at the California 70.3 results from March 31, 2007).
The same seems to apply to most of my 'money' races. I raced on 7/8 and would not have made the criteria either - neither would have 3 other girls.

I will admit to you that I have stressed (perhaps unnecessarily and continue to do so) about this requal thing.
I have had back problems for the past 4 years which we are finally get our hands around.
I have not shyed away from competition (have not specifically picked races so I could meet the requal criteria).

However, I am a professional triathlete. I may not currently (or in the past couple years) have the top results, but have been battling back inspite of my physical issues. I offer way more to the sport than my results - no to mention - that I believe I belong in the field.

At this point, I am just going to keep training and racing (obviously!).
If I don't make the time requal standard, I will petition my renewal.
I have been competing professionally since 2002.
My entire life is built around my profession, as is my coaching business.
It would be devastating to have my license pulled due to an arbirtrary standard.
I'm hoping that competing on Team USA in '06 would serve as some sort of requal.

Thanks for listening...I'm not sure what to do other than do my best and wait and see come end of the year.

________________________________________________________________________

Hi Susie,

I think when folks put pen to paper on results they will see that 8% doesn't work in many cases.
Below I have copied results from several major races that I have competed in.
Unless my math is off, the red highlighted athletes don't meet the standard!

Winning time California 70.3: 4:26 (plus approx 8%) = 21 min = 4:47

TOTAL TIME	LAST NAME	FIRST NAME	RACE DIVISION
04:26:15	MAJOR	KATE	WPRO
04:31:46	GRIESBAUER	DEDE	WPRO
04:33:03	LAVELLE	BECKY	WPRO
04:34:49	LION	ALISHA	WPRO
04:37:46	CAVE	LEANDA	WPRO
04:39:28	MARSH	AMY	WPRO
04:41:57	KRISTENSEN	LISBETH	WPRO
04:42:20	CORBIN	LINSEY	WPRO
04:42:47	WADDEL	ALEXIS	WPRO
04:44:26	FORD	ERIN	WPRO
04:46:14	GALLO	LINDA	WPRO
04:46:37	COUCH	KELLY	WPRO
04:48:21	FILLIOL	NATASHA	WPRO
04:50:28	JONES	STEPHANIE	WPRO
04:51:00	HANDEL	KELLY	WPRO
04:51:16	LOVATO	AMANDA	WPRO
04:51:42	DANAIS	MARIE	WPRO
04:51:55	JENSEN	LAUREN	WPRO
04:52:11	HAVILAND	HEATHER	WPRO
04:53:06	BISCAY	HILLARY	WPRO
04:54:51	BROWN	LARA	WPRO
04:57:14	SEARS	RACHEL	WPRO
04:59:36	MCMAHON	DONNA	WPRO
05:00:24	HOMO	MALAIKA	WPRO
05:02:14	WELCH	SIAN	WPRO
05:02:39	JORRIS	HEATHER	WPRO
05:06:30	ALBERTAZZI	TERI	WPRO
05:07:59	OSWALD	ROBIN	WPRO
05:10:36	BERTINE	KATHRYN	WPRO
DNF	BATIZY-MORLEY	JULIANNA	WPRO
DNF	HAGER	KIMBERLY	WPRO

Winning time Wildflower: 4:31 (plus approx 8%) = 23 min = 4:54


Wildflower Long Course

1	FPro	McGlone, Samantha	4:31:08
2	FPro	Badmann, Natasha	4:36:53
3	FPro	Loeffler, Kim	4:44:18
4	FPro	Lawn, Joanna	4:45:25
5	FPro	Major, Kate	4:50:54
6	FPro	Couch, Kelly	4:53:39
7	FPro	Waldner, Charlene	4:54:26
8	FPro	Gallo, Linda	4:54:53
9	FPro	Sawicki, Monique	4:54:59
10	FPro	Waddel, Alexis	4:57:53
11	FPro	Hibbard, Beth	5:03:49
12	FPro	LaBerge, Karin	5:07:16
13	FPro	Arthur, Kristi	5:10:52
14	FPro	Sears, Rachel	5:12:11
15	FPro	Homo, Malaika	5:13:10
16	FPro	Castro, Terra	5:16:22
17	FPro	Tarver, Jill	5:22:41
18	FPro	Murphy, Christy	5:35:22
19	FPro	Cronje, Kathryn	5:41:34
20	FPro	Castillo Swanson, Eileen	5:42:00

 

7/8/07 - Lake Stevens 70.3

Winning Time: 4:28 plus 8% approx 22 min = 4:49

    1 Rebekah Keat         4:28:05         

    2 Melissa Ashton       4:31:11         

    3 Heather Gollnick     4:34:02         

    4 Heather Wurtele      4:35:19         

    5 Kelly Couch            4:38:38         

    6 Heather Fuhr          4:39:38         

    7 Christine Fletcher      4:42:38         

    8 Gabriela Loskotova   4:46:35         

    9 Lindsey Corbin         4:50:00         

   10 Laura Tingle            4:51:04         

   11 Lori-lynn Leach      4:52:51    

   12 Rachel Sears         4:57:05  

_________________________________________________________________

Susie-
Thanks for reading my previous e-mail.  I think it is great that you are staying active as an advocate of elite 
racing!  It is hard for me to be too vocal about this issue (even though I am passionately against it!) 
because I am an athlete who is still on the bubble (though if things go as planned and all the swimming 
I've been doing pays off, I won't be on the bubble for long!).  Every elite that I've spoken to up here in 
Boulder has been either against re-qual or virtually unaware of the re-qualification standard even existing!  
I have heard second and third-hand some of the motivation for putting this into place a few years back, 
but it seems like many of the re-qual standard's main proponents have since left USAT.  If USAT's goal 
is athlete development with the best interests of both elites and age-groupers the top priority, than getting 
rid of the re-qual requirement will be beneficial to both groups.  Like I said previously, no sense widening 
the gap between age-groups and elites even more.  It would be great if you could bring this up with Alison 
and the rest of the AAC/Board.  Having been a successful and well respected athlete, I know that any 
input that you give to them on the issue will b0.0.010592.2080R:005d70dd E:3204.357101038 V:103c.13b2.1.16.