The CapTex Triathlon in Austin, Texas, just concluded, is an awesome race. But just like plenty of other awesome races—the Hawaiian Ironman included—sometimes bad things happen at good races.

In this opinion piece we here at Slowtwitch—actually, I, speaking only for myself, lest I drag my fellow editors to places they don't wish to go—will again appeal for relative order where there is relative chaos.

Andy Carlson was having a breakout race at the Wildflower Tri back in the 1990s. He was well out in front and as he was an extremely talented runner he was cruising to an apparent win. He was cruising so fast, in fact, he got to the run turnaround before the guy with the orange cone got to the turnaround. Andy is still out there running toward that turnaround cone.

Sometimes, bad things happen. When they do, to whom does the fault belong?

Knowledge of Course
Upon commencing the swim at the CapTex Tri today, according to Hunter Kemper, the pros swam, "two-hundred meters to a yellow buoy, made a right, we swam forty meters, another right hand turn, heading back up the river; as soon as we make that right hand turn, a huge speedboat comes in front of us, blocks us and sends us back. Potts was the only one who said, screw it."

Potts rounded the buoy, and kept swimming, because, irrespective of what the person in the speed boat said, Potts apparently felt he accurately knew the course. The other swimmers, heeding the directive of someone who seemed to be in charge and knowledgeable, deferred to the judgment of him who they assumed to be acting in an official capacity.

Fellow triathletes tend to be unequivocal about this sort of thing when it happens and, even if they don't know the rule designation they know its substance. You first see this mentioned in "3.4 Race Conduct" of USA Triathlon's rules, in paragraph (a): Entire Course... It is the participant’s responsibility to know the course."

Just to make double-dang sure, USAT includes, under Article V, Cycling Conduct, 5.3: "Knowledge of Course: The sole responsibility of knowing and following the prescribed cycling course rests with each participant."

Likewise, under Article VI, Running Conduct, we read: "6.2 Knowledge of the Course. The responsibility of knowing and following the prescribed course rests with each participant."

Notably, this "Knowledge of Course" rule is omitted from Article IV, Swimming Conduct. Why is this? Maybe because USAT presumes that it's dangerous when swimmers refuse to obey the directive of officials. I can think of cases where, for example, officials directed athletes to shore because of what else—beside triathletes—was seen swimming in the waters.

Does expected behavior during the swim leg, then, differ from terrestrial legs, because, while in the water, We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple. Are we clear?

Are there rules about following the directives of officials? Not really—not that I can find. There is this:

"9.6 Race Marshals. Race Marshals will be assigned to the swim, cycle, and run portions of the event and to the transition areas and will follow all instructions of the Head Referee. Race Marshals shall have jurisdiction over all persons in their respective areas of assignment."

Who are these "persons" over which race marshals enjoy jurisdiction? Head referees have jurisdiction over race marshals. What's lower than a race marshal? An athlete, I'd think. A volunteer.

Was the person in the speedboat a race marshal? Was he the swim course coordinator. A lifeguard? The head lifeguard? As a swimmer, when do you obey these people and when do you ignore them?

Unauthorized Assistance
It was observed by several of our spotters that professional male triathlete Dustin McLarty—after having apparently abandoned his personal race ambitions—ran alongside, occasionally directly in front of, his sister Sara McLarty. This, for what our spotters variously concluded was the majority of the run on a fairly windy day.

I noted this activity during our live coverage, and broached the subject of unauthorized assistance. Jarrod Shoemaker almost immediately tweeted: "the rules regarding pacing are clear no athlete shall receive pacing from any other individual. rule 3.4.d."

Jarrod's absolutely right. The rule reads, under Article III General Rules of Conduct and Penalties:

"3.4(d) d. Unauthorized Assistance. No participant shall accept from any person (other than a race official) physical assistance in any form, including food, drink, equipment, support, pacing..."

Still, I think there's a strong case that if you honor and enforce this rule strictly, most of the pro field at CapTex or any other race could be disqualified for pacing, especially during the swim or the bike, if athletes engage in "trading pace", even when such trading occurs in obedience to position rules.

As I have written before, I think unauthorized assistance happens when an athlete clearly, in the mind of an official, abandons reasonable ambitions pursuant to an optimized personal performance, and subordinates that performance to the service of another athlete.

Further, this must only be in the context of no-draft amateur racing, as there are clearly cases in professional draft-legal racing when team tactics are used, and these often include subordinating one's ambition for an overall finish to the betterment of the team.

This question has come up in the context of Ironman races many times in the past. Yet it seems that neither WTC nor USAT has any interest in enforcing this rule, or even explaining it. This, because I've never gotten a clear explanation for why it occurs race after race, and I've never seen anyone get a penalty for pacing when two people—each entered in the race—constitute the pacer and the pacee. Therefore, I can't blame Dustin McLarty from keeping his sister company until and unless either or both these rule making and enforcing organizations clearly describe to their constituencies what's legal and what's not, and what they intend to enforce and what they don't.

I do find it ironic that USAT's featured article, on its website, right now, is Permitted Run Conduct. The article begins:

This week we begin our series on article 6 — Running Conduct. Today’s rule is 6.1 Permitted Conduct.

The rule requires that participants walk or run the entire prescribed run course. Runners should pace themselves over the course and remember that it’s always ok to walk. The rule disallows crawling since that would indicate medical distress. 

However, "Runners should pace themselves" does not actually appear in Rule 6. The author of this article decided to slide in a bit of 3.4(d), just to make sure readers understand that it's their responsibility to run their races without pacers. Note that 3.4(d) does not refer to "outside assistance", rather "unauthorized assistance" and this does not differentiate between those entered in the race versus unentered pacers.

Who Cares?
Honestly, most readers don't care about any of this. Whenever I write about bad things to that happen to good people at great races, our readers reactions are, "ho hum", because it's not likely to impact their racing.

Until it does impact their racing. Then we get a thread on our reader forum detailing the miscarriage of justice that befell a person last weekend at his race.

In this particular case, Hunter Kemper and his mates should have done, what, exactly, when the speedboat raced up and blocked their progress? Maybe we'll poll this, and see what you all think. The response of the race organizers to what happened should be... what? Does USAT have a role in helping decide what that response is? I don't know.

So, to the question, "Who Cares?" This week it's Hunter Kemper, Cameron Dye, and maybe (and maybe not) certain entrants in the women's CapTex field. Next week, you might be the one who cares, and, if so, we'll probably be hosting your righteous gripe on our reader forum.