No finish line friends at IM and HIMs (Page 5)

Again, the "I do what I want" mentality is ok and justify breaking the rules correct? So can I draft of a better cyclist to tow me into the run where I can perform better and maybe earn a KQ? What about swimming with fins or cutting the run course short? What about stealing a tube on transition from the racer next to me cuz I put too much air on my tire, it blew up cuz of the heat and cuz I didn’t want to carry stuff hence I have no tubes? Would that be ok just because it is worth to me whether it annoys/affects you or not?

Where are the "Anchorman" quotes when you need them?

Oh, right here ---> "I woke up on the floor of some Japanese family's rec room, and they would NOT stop screaming. "

...Carry On...

Kansas 70.3, I think it was even the RD that put her out there (but it was father's day).

I think this debate is live and let live vs live and let die. 

I don't violate the rules.  I don't cheat.  I don't speed.  I don't even fudge my charitable deductions on my income tax.  But if YOU do, I don't really give a rip.  You run your race and I'll run mine.  If you want to bring grandma across the line with you, that is between you and the RD.  I think the rule it total BS but no one at M-dot consulted me so it really doesn't matter.  Doesn't really matter what any of us think about the rule, all that matters is whether or not it's going to be enforced.  Personally, I'll give you 3 to  2 odds they don't!  Any takers?

~Mike

Bet it was.  It was stated as a rule at the last two IMs I did....albeit tounge in cheek...but it was a "rule".

~Mike

Before, they had a "staging zone" where the family member would be ready to meet up with the athlete.  With the new rules from last year this person had to be able to get across the line under their own motor skills, and not by being carried (i.e. - no more carrying babies or pushing grandma in a wheelchair).  Now they simply will not have that staging area.

Which means, if you want someone to run across the line with you, you SPECIFICALLY will have to find a way to get someone OVER the barriers separating the spectators from the athletes.  You do that, you are TRYING to break the rules.  There is simply no "spontaneity" to it at an IM.

Now at 70.3's it is different as they are not as rigid with their barriers and finish areas.  But a rule is a rule.  You sign a waiver when you enter the event saying you will follow the rules or else.  Break the rule??  Your fault, you are responsible for your actions.

And having never done one .... how can you even remotely begin to understand what having a finisher's medal and seeing your name on the official finisher's list means?  I want you to tell the person who crossed the line at LP in 17:01 that being an official finisher isn't important.  It was exciting and depressing at the same time seeing that this person wasn't going to make it, but came so damn close.

Getting DQ'ed because one is simply too f-cking stubborn and self-conscious to follow a simple rule is simply idiotic.

No, official NAS policy last year was ONE family member that had to be able to go across with the athlete under their own power.

That's not what they said at IMKY the last 2 years.  They said nobody was allowed.  Period.   Maybe IMKY is not NAS.  What is NAS anyway?

~Mike

IMKY was owned by WTC, not NAS (North American Sports)    WTC bought NAS, so now they are all WTC.

True, KY has always been WTC.  So if they weren't enforcing it then, then they need to put up or shut up with their policy.

NAS = North American Sports which were the owners of IM FL, LP, CA, CDA, WI, Cali 70.3, FL 70.3.  They sold all the race hosting back to WTC who now owns them.

Makes me think this is more driven by the US being litigious if it is own domestic races

I never said that your athletic accomplishments were invalid.  (And while what you have done is a dream for a lot of people, I have sat through 8 hour ball practices/games in high school ....... and they were boring as hell unless I was up to bat or rotating out as the catcher/pitcher).  I simply pointed out that you do NOT know whether or not having your name on a finisher's list or receiving a medal for the accomplishment will mean anything because you haven't been there.  And nor could you predict what is important to someone else.  Heck, you've even said you weren't going to do an IM, so why the hell would you care?

Again, why flaunt the rules???

Would you have been happy and so carefree if Joe Firstbaseman brought out his kid to the on-deck circle during a playoff game?  Sure, it's against the rules, sure it puts the kid at risk from a 90 mph fastball careened off into the dugout.  But hey, it will look great having a picture on the wall of the kid and his Dad!  Damn the rules!

And don't give me that "Different sport, different scenario" bull crap.  It is the same sort of thing.

Irrelevant information in regards to this thread, but here. Here's a pat on the back. Sounds like you need one.

Perhaps someone could set up a staging area PAST the finish line where family members could run down the with their racer? You could even CHARGE $$$! I'm sure the Ironman brand is looking for another way to make money. For an extra $150.00 we can even change your finish time to a sub 9. If you didn't do the race for $600.00 we can rent you a tri outfit and let you have your picture made crossing the finish line.

It would be nice if there was a different area (away from the finish line) with Ironman logos that family members could have their pictures made together.

Even if my kids were small I wouldn't want them running down the finish line with me. Just personal preference.

This was uncalled for.  There's no need to get personal. 

~Mike

As has been pointed out in the previous post this rule is a direct result of how litigious we are as a society.  This is most likely being mandated by their insurance companies.  When you (the athlete\participant) register for the event and sign the waiver you are saying that you won't sue WTC\NAS, or whomever is running the race, if something happens to you while on the course and this has large ramifications on their insurance costs. 

If you bring a child/spouse/mother/dog/etc... onto the course and god forbid they get hurt in that last 50 feet, they can technically sue the heck out of WTC\NAS or at least try to as they didn't sign any waiver.  It costs money to defend yourself even in frivolous lawsuits. 

These races are expensive enough and I personally wouldn't want to have to pay more because somebody disregarded a rule, got a family member hurt and sued.  That is more of an impact to me then having to slow down or speed up to get my own finisher picture.  Based on my last IM I'm not going to be competing for any Kona\AG spots

Your are probably right that it's being driven by the insurance companies.  But like someone posted, this could just be a legal fig leaf.  Now NAS has a formal written policy that you violated so if you got hurt, your bad.  Does it necessarily mean they are going to rigidly enforce the rule?  I doubt it.  We'll have to resurrect this thread after the first NAS IM event this year and as we'll watch IM Live and see if we see any non-racers come acroos the line.  :-)  Maybe they'll have a bouncer to rip the child from the finisher's arms just as they hand them a DQ tag!

~Mike

I can not comment on a HIM or a IM.  I can say that on my first 5k, my daughter (6 at the time) runnng the last .25 miles and crossing the finish with me...well the look on her face was more important then anything.

Just a Dad's point of view.

Joe 

At least you are open to admit what's this is really about. I just hope you live by that reasoning. At the end of the day, screw up rules or showing respect for others, even when someone's acts might upset or affect you in any way and you don't agree with their actions, please remember: they are entitled to do whatever they want! It might seem crazy to you but it might mean something to THEM.

PS. Daddy could also choose to train enough just to be healthy and not race so he could spend more time with kids/wife. That would be a more valuable 'sacrifice', but we know it is not really about that but what he is entitled to