Charlie Crawford, the Commissioner of Officials of USA Triathlon is fairly well known in the triathlon community but most triathletes usually prefer not to see him, well, officially that is.
ST: Charlie, what made you decide to get into officiating?
Charlie: I love the sport. I was a race director for ten years. My wife and children were all triathletes. We all raced almost every weekend. After one particularly large pack passed me in 1989 at the Gulf Coast Triathlon, I was disturbed to find that not one penalty had been called. I decided that, rather than complain I would work to have the sport I loved be one with enforced rules. The following spring I joined the Officials Program. We’ve been fortunate to have great support from USA Triathlon, which has been strongly committed to the building of an effective corps of officials.
ST: Are you ok with the habits of riders at the races at which you and your fellow USAT officials officiate?
Charlie: I’m ok with behavior that does not violate any of the USAT Competitive Rules. When anyone violates any of those rules, however, it is the responsibility of the official to cite the violator and assess the appropriate penalty. Our policy is rigorous enforcement of any technical violation of the Competitive Rules. All USAT officials are charged with that task and we welcome input from both race directors and athletes about the effectiveness of the officiating team.
ST: In your eyes, what needs to change, and can it actually happen?
Charlie: The availability of motorcycles and drivers is a limiting factor for us in some locations. Prioritizing the acquisition of motorcycles as part of their pre-race preparations is essential for event organizers to have a fair race. If we do not have motorcycles, we are just spectators in the transition area. To be effective, there has to be a good partnership between the event organizer and the officiating team. The event organizer must be willing to hire enough officials for the event and there must be a motorcycle and driver for each official. USAT has published minimum standards for staffing races with officials. Many of our race directors ask for more than the minimum and the increased enforcement can make the difference between a fair competition and one where the athletes feel cheated.
ST: But are there enough officials out there in terms of numbers needed?
Charlie: On the one hand we are covering almost every race that requests officials. We have an assignment rate of over 99%. However, many of our officials are working 10 to 12 events per year so more officials would certainly help. We have been working very hard to increase our numbers each year. When I was appointed Commissioner in 1996 there were 75 officials and we had 125 races to cover. Today we have 410 officials and are covering nearly 600 races. As fast as we train officials, more and more races are requesting officials. This year we have a goal of training 75 new officials. I have taught 10 certification clinics and the Regional Officials Coordinators have taught another 24 clinics this year. The key is finding smart, focused individuals who have no agenda and who are willing to give up their weekends to bring fairness to events. We are deeply grateful for all those who are working as officials and acknowledge their sacrifices for the sport. We just need more of them.
ST: Would you say that the officials at the various races are qualified and empowered enough to handle various infractions?
Charlie: Absolutely.
ST: The rules about drafting have changed quite a bit over time and they seem to be less aggressive these days. Why is that?
Charlie: I don’t agree with your premise. Let’s take a look at the rules history. In the 1980s, as many of you remember, there was one penalty for drafting – Disqualification! By 1991 it was apparent that a draconian penalty was not working because the officials were hesitant to use it. At the time, officials had been trained to take a “pro-active” approach to enforcement. Pro-active plus disqualification turned out to be an unworkable formula. By the end of 1991 we had moved to time penalties for all rules that did not address safety. Still, the pro-active training of many officials led to uneven results.
It wasn’t until the end of 1993 when we had a complete overhaul of the Officials Program management followed by a Board of Directors resolution in February 1994 that eliminated the pro-active approach that we began seeing success in rules enforcement. The Officials Program directed each referee to call a foul when a rule was violated. The new Commissioner of Officials was adamant that officials do their duty and make calls. The new pro rules had just been incorporated into the rule book and for the first time we began having real success in tightly enforcing the rules on the pros with stand-down penalties.
In 1999 the penalties were increased to the current system which includes a disqualification for anyone getting a third penalty in an event. I believe our system is a good balance of punitive remedies and moderation and is based upon bike distance in the event:
Distance - Category / 1 Violation / 2 Violations / 3Violations
Short-Med bike <50K / 2 minutes / 6 minutes / Disqualification
Long bike 50K to 100K / 4 minutes / 12 minutes / Disqualification
Ultra bike> 100K / 6 minutes / 18 minutes / Disqualification
For the past twelve years we trained officials to use a systematic approach to rules enforcement. Each of the 5.10 Bicycle Position rules has a clear procedure in the Officials Manual on what to look for and how to document the incident. That has aided enormously in making sure that the citations are accurate and the offender is deserving of a penalty. Here are some results from the past couple of years:
2006
416 races officiated
187,524 athletes
4949 penalties
2.62% average per race
2007
462 races officiated
205,223 athletes
4677 penalties
2.28% average per race
This year we have been assigned to 575 races so far and the numbers seem to be tracking at a 2.21% penalty rate.
ST: Do race promoters put too many folks out on certain courses? Is it impossible to race some of these races clean?
Charlie: It is difficult to really tell the capacity level for races but there are some courses where it would be inappropriate to put motorcycles out there because of space issues and the number of athletes. It is something for every event organizer to keep in mind when he designs the course and the wave start order and times between waves.
ST: Comparatively speaking, how do you think the officiating at USAT races compares to officiating at Ironman-branded at events?
Charlie: This is not a contest. We are closely working with our partner, WTC, to get as many of our certified officials to the WTC events as possible. Jimmy and I regularly speak on the phone about different issues and rules enforcement techniques. Both of us want the same thing – well officiated events. WTC produces extraordinary events and we are proud to support them.
ST: Do you see a big difference in terms of drafting among athletes from certain countries versus those of other areas?
Charlie: Not really. I do find that non US athletes are surprised to find they have been penalized instead of receiving a warning. However, there are plenty of large packs of cyclists without a single foreign national in the group, so I would not say foreign athletes disobey rules more than US competitors. It comes down to individuals, not nationality.
ST: What about rule enforcement of USAT compared to those of other countries?
Charlie: I cannot speak about the enforcement procedures of other countries because I do not know. I can say that USAT’s Article 5.10 is a comprehensive system in which the rules are inter-related and I haven’t found any other set of rules that is a system. Our system requires riders to ride on the right, pass on the left, and mandates one-way traffic through the draft zone depending upon how the rider entered the zone. Once we teach our officials how to understand the system it becomes very easy to enforce all the rules as technical fouls. USAT spends a lot of resources on officials training and I believe it has been a good investment.
ST: What about using technology to address drafting. For example an electronic gadget that measures the time and distance of other competitors near it. Has USAT looked closer at such technology?
Charlie: We would certainly be interested in any device that might help in enforcement. It would have to be affordable and accurate. We would be glad to test such a device.
