Now that the Olympics are past, and the afterglow of winning a bronze medal has somewhat abated, a question remains. The United States had three of four athletes well in front of the main pack in the women’s race. Could there have been a tactic employed that would’ve gained us a higher medal, or a greater number of them? If so, ought tactics to have been employed or considered?

I asked this of several people in a position to express reasonable and informed opinions.

Steve Larsen, a former national caliber cyclist and triathlete, answered, “First, I want to acknowledge that these were three superbly conditioned athletes, and there is nothing I could’ve done that would’ve gotten them to that physiological level. And, I’m a spectator.

“However, there were some tactical issues,” he continued. “Here you have the acknowledged strongest woman in the race [Loretta Harrop], perhaps the gold medal favorite, and our lead woman [reigning world champion Sheila Taormina] appeared to me to be trading pull for pull with her. Atop that hill it would’ve been easy to turn around and see you had two teammates well off the front of the pack, and only 50 meters behind. The only conceivable move is to sit on and do no work, and to let your teammates catch up. Then, you have a variety of options. It’s a shame to see such well-conditioned athletes ignoring or, even worse, failing to comprehend such basic, basic tactical elements.”

The only way you can argue the way Larsen does is to make an assumption. Larsen’s comments bespeak the view that increasing a gold medal chance for one’s country is the overriding ethic. This would be the case even if such a tactical decision decreases a person’s individual chance for gold. Increasing the chance for a team medal comes first, and the urge to win an individual medal must be subordinated to that.

For the record, what ought Taormina have done in order to maximize America's medal chances? There are several possible options. She could’ve done exactly what she did, believing strongly she had the ability to run to gold—not a bad assumption for the reigning world champion. She could’ve just sat up, and waited for the other women to catch her. In this case the three could’ve worked together, keeping the “rubber band” stretched between them and the Australian, but not to the point of breaking. Conceivably, the three would’ve ridden up to Harrop by lap four, five or six, causing Harrop to do her work solo while the three Americans were splitting the workload.

The better scenario would be for Taormina to stay with Harrop, but not to take any pulls. In this case Harrop would have been “used up” during the bike leg. In such case the other two Americans, Barb Lindquist and Susan Williams, would’ve had a much better chance of catching the front two. Then, there are a variety of options. Depending on how far back the chase pack was, all four could’ve worked in tandem to increase their lead. Or, the Americans could’ve taken turns, one by one, attacking Harrop, and forcing Harrop to chase. All this assumes, however, that triathlon is a team sport and, if so, that affiliations are determined by national borders.

Is “team triathlon” clearly an ethic that belongs in a historically individual discipline, just because it’s now inherent in cycling and cycling is a part of triathlon? If America values this ethic, it doesn't appear to show it based on the incentives it provides. Both the USOC and USAT provide medal bonuses, but neither suggests, encourages or mandates bonuses to be shared with teammates. In light of this, ought Taormina have gotten the idea she was racing as anything other than an individual athlete?

“I haven’t talked to Sheila about any tactical issues surrounding this race,” said Lew Kidder, Taormina’s coach, “so I can’t speak for her regarding it. In general, however, I can say this is absolutely an issue of honor with her. She feels that, in triathlon, there is inherently an ethical problem with sitting in. I remember back to other races, other World Cups, where Sheila has gone berserk over those who make their way to the front group and then refuse to pull.

“In the end,” continued Kidder, “none of this matters. The only thing that matters is giving value to your customer. When it comes to Olympic style racing, we have the money for that program only because the USOC provides it. By any standard, we’ve provided them a good return when considering women’s triathlon. In the last four years we’ve had four world championships, two Olympics, a Pan Am Games, and a Goodwill Games. In these eight major competitions, 24 women’s medals were awarded, and the U.S. women have taken almost half of these medals.”

However, the aggregate age of our three female Olympians is above 100 years. In four more years all three will probably be having babies, or building out-of-sport careers, or whatever it is they’ll choose to do outside of Olympic-style triathlon. Laura Reback is our most likely future Olympic team member. Will we be recruiting top swimmers, as Kidder suggests? If so, then the scenario played out in the women’s race in Athens is likely to be played out again and again. Will we be schooling these athletes in team tactics, and laying upon them altruistic expectations?

In only its second Olympics, this style of triathlon is young, barely a dozen years old, and perhaps athletes are confused as to loyalties. One sees treaties of convenience among athletes of different countries. It is commonly accepted that the Australian and American women have exhibited not only a détente, but an active cooperation, because of the extraordinary swim speed enjoyed by Barb Lindquist, Laura Reback, Taormina, Harrop, and past Australian champions.

Even Siri Lindley, the triathlon color commentator for NBC’s American audience, spoke in a way considered by some biased in favor of Australian Harrop. Lindley alluded to the close relationship she enjoyed with her as they both were part of the Swiss enclave formed by coach Brett Sutton, a training relationship that propelled Lindley to eventual world champion status.

What are the appropriate loyalties in Olympic-style triathlon? Loyalty to sponsors? To trade team teammates? To training partners? To those who exhibit skills that allow for a symbiosis among athletes of different countries? To your home country, because of patriotism, or because of funding you’ve accepted in the four years prior to the Olympics?

“We blew it,” says master triathlon tactician and former bike racer Mark Montgomery. “But, it’s the only way it could’ve played out, with the incentives we had in place.

“Sheila did exactly the right thing,” Montgomery continued. “If I was her, I’d have done precisely what she did. The last thing I’d have done was wait for those other two American girls, because I’d have had a better shot at a medal without them and, besides, beyond anything else I’d want to be the first finisher from my country.”

Why not? Do we begrudge Jürgen Zäck his annual attempt to be the first German finisher at Kona? Do we look ill upon Normann Stadler, Thomas Hellriegel or Lothar Leder when they try to stop Jürgen from realizing that dream, and each attempts to realize it himself? Ought we to expect loyalties to change from race to race? Is it okay to race purely as an individual in Kona, or in world cup or unaffiliated races, yet only for the good of the home country in the Olympics?

“The only way you can righteously expect athletes to sacrifice a place on the podium,” maintains Montgomery, “is if they are given the proper incentives. USAT has the resources to do this. Establish a bonus for a gold medal and split it up evenly among the team. In fact, if you really want athletes to race for the good of the country, make the bonus loser-heavy. For example, let’s say you establish a total purse of $80,000 for an Olympic gold medal. If America wins the gold in the next Olympics, the gold medal winner makes $20,000, and the other two on the team make $30,000 each. A silver medal is worth half that, and so forth. Make it understood that a team gold is what we’re after, and structure the program, and the incentives, toward that end.”

“This is a discussion we need to have,” muses Kidder. “It will be difficult, and painful, and perhaps it’ll be an angry discussion. But we need to have it nonetheless.”