Slowtwitch Features

(PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This article is the third in a three-part series. In the first article, Greg Hitchcock details why Alan Webb's decision to forsake collegiate running for the professional ranks was probably the right one. Then our publisher (me) opined on why becoming a touring pro as a teenager is—while correct for Webb—almost never the proper route for a gifted teenage triathlete. In our final installment below Lew Kidder says I'm right, but not necessarily for the reasons I wrote. He says it's just plain better for NGBs to be fishing for their Olympians as they leave college—they're more likely to catch a medal that way. Fasten your seat belts. Kidder is going to ruffle some feathers with what he writes below. Kidder is founder and former publisher of Triathlon Times, which he sold to Inside Publications and is now named Inside Triathlon. He is also the "discoverer" and coach of American Olympian Sheila Taormina.)

"We shouldn't even be looking for talented triathletes who're still in the junior ranks. Fielding a junior team for worlds ought not to be of any serious priority for us. We should only be looking for our future talent as they're leaving college. Not only is it the most ethical thing to do, it's our best strategy if our goal is winning world championships." Dan Empfield, slowtwitch.com, July 22, 2002.

Dan’s right. He’s right on the ethical issues, of course, but cynical me doesn’t want to walk that road right now. Instead, let’s take a journey on the dark side. Let’s talk bidness.

In the Olympic medal bidness, there are three constants. First, you got your seller, then you got your buyer, and then you goth your product.

The seller in this particular transaction can only be USA Triathlon. Why? At the risk of getting slightly ahead of ourselves, it’s because invitations to the Olympic games do not go to individual athletes in the first instance (I’ll explain this Olympic stuff a little later). They go to each country's recognized national governing body (NGB) for that sport—and for triathlon in the US of A, that would be the friendly local monopoly known as USAT. You can be the world’s best in your sport, but if you don’t get selected by your NGB, you ain’t going to the dance. Just ask some of the top Kenyan runners, if you want proof.

Identifying the buyer is easy—he (she) (it) is the one with the money. In this case, it is the USOC, which has tons of the green stuff and a willingness to part with a bob or two if it can get what it wants. What does it want? Medals, baby, especially those gold, silver, and bronze doodads with the five interlocking rings.

So, the product is the medals, eh? Well, yes, theoretically at least. But the real product is (are) athletes with the ability to actually win those medals.

Now we have the outlines of the deal. USOC wants triathlon medals in Athens, Beijing, and beyond, and is willing to pay major bucks to USAT for development of athletes who can deliver. What constitutes "major bucks"? Well, in 2003, it will come to $511,613, give or take, and USAT has shaken hands and taken the money.

Which leaves USAT with a small problem—how to identify, and then develop, athletes with a real chance to win those medals. If they get it right, they’ll have a happy customer—and one who will continue to buy the product. Get it wrong, however, and the customer might well choose to reallocate those resources to a more promising arena. Like short-track speed skating, or soccer, or women’s weight-lifting.

What type of athlete has a chance to win an Olympic medal in triathlon? After four years coaching one who does, I think I can break all Olympic pretenders into three categories. Two have a reasonable chance to win a medal . . . but the third has none. I’ll call the first two "sharks" and "cheetahs". For lack of a more descriptive term, I’ve named the third "lunch".

Before describing the two contenders, however, we need to understand the basics of the game. And, for purposes of Olympic competition, the basics boil down to one—drafting on the bike. (Love it or hate it, what’s important here is that it IS. And WILL BE. Not gonna change—so we just have to adapt.)

Conventional wisdom says the drafting rule makes it nothing but a running race. But I’m here to tell you the opposite is true. As the women demonstrate again and again, the ability to swim really, really fast is the one indispensable talent. Time after time, the big races are absolutely controlled by the swimmer breakaway. Examples? Try the 1999 Worlds—a six-person breakaway gained 1:10 by T2, but it was enough for Loretta Harrop to win overall. 2000 Worlds—won by Nicki Hackett after a three-person break. 2001 Worlds—the runners won, but only because the front pack crashed as it was pulling away. No one went with Taormina at the 2000 Olympic Games, but 34 members of the 48-person field were still eliminated by the end of the first leg. The four-woman break went one-two-three-five at the 2001 Goodwill Games. And this year, the break has controlled every world cup in which two or more of the super swimmers started.

Which brings us to the first category of contenders. Sharks: those who can swim to a distinct lead in the first leg, build upon it during the bike, and then run fast enough to hold off the faster runners in the chasing packs. In my view, a potential "shark" must meet three standards. First, he/she must been a world-class swimmer. Not a "good" swimmer—a WORLD class swimmer. Second, he/she must have a physique closer to that of a world-class triathlete than that of a typical top swimmer. And third, he/she must be a good natural athlete. Klutzes need not apply.

What constitutes a world-class swimmer? In my view, women must have met one of these standards during her swim career: 2:01 for the 200 meter free, 4:17 for the 400 meter free, 4:48 for the 500-yard free, 9:55 for the 1000-yard free, or 16:30 for the 1500-meter free. Never went that fast? Sorry, you aren’t going to be a Shark. What would the standards be for men? About 8% faster: Around 1:51 for the 200-meter free, 3:55 for the 400-meter, 4:31 for the 500-yard, 9:07 for the 1000-yard, and 15:30 for the 1500-meter. NOTE: To allow for the minute possibility that someone who didn’t meet those standards before becoming a triathlete might really be a shark in disguise, I would set an alternative standard. If a woman can swim 18:00 for 1500-meters long course now ("now" meaning on a pro triathlete's training regimen), or if a man could swim 16:45, I would call that evidence of the swim skills needed to be a shark.

Who are the female sharks these days? Loretta Harrop and Nicki Hackett of Australia certainly qualify, as do Barb Lindquist, Sheila Taormina, and Laura Reback of the U.S. Not a particularly long list, but one of definite quality (together, they currently occupy five of the top eight spots in the ITU points standings). And you might want to add in Americans Joanna Zeiger and Becky Gibbs. Joanna was within five meters of holding onto this pack at 2001 worlds in Edmonton, and Becky has swum on their toes in the last two major races (World Cup Edmonton and Life Time Fitness).

What about physiques? Well, the heights of this group range from Taormina’s 5’ 3" to Gibbs’ 5’ 10", far short of the six-foot or better for many top swimmers. And though muscular, all have the look of the top athletes in our sport. Want an example of the difference? Amy Van Dyken, despite her flat-out swim speed, is a good example of a physique unlikely to contend for an Olympic medal in triathlon. That’s not a shot at Amy—that’s just how things are.

Are there any sharks among the men? Aussie Craig Walton certainly comes close, though his swim times are only four percent or so faster than those of Lindquist and company. But that’s about the extent of it . . . which of course suggests the reason why nearly all male ITU races are dominated by the cheetahs. But if you could put a 28-year-old Rob Mackle and a 30-year-old Rick Wells into the ITU fields these days, I bet you’d see a whole different cast at the top of today’s point standings.

Which brings us to category two. I’d define a cheetah as having at least enough swim speed to hold the back of the main chase pack in leg number one and then the ability to run like the wind when the racing flats hit the road. Standards? Men: sub-19:00 for the 1500 meter swim now, plus sub-29 for 10K on the track at sometime in his career, or sub-29:45 now. Women: sub-19:45 for the 1500-meter swim now, plus sub-33 for the 10K at some time in her career, or sub-34 now.

Who are the current cheetahs? The women’s list starts with American Siri Lindley of course, but also includes Michellie Jones of Australia and at least two Brazilians (Carla Moreno and Marianna Ohata). Add in Olympic gold medallist Brigitte McMahon of Switzerland, who certainly demonstrated her running talent in Sydney. And, of course, Canadian Carol Montgomery. Among the men, you have at least 15 who fit the description, with the winner usually being the one who felt "on" that day and caught all the breaks.

That’s it, though. No one else has much of a chance. Fancy yourself a shark, but can’t hold Taormina’s toes? Sorry, you’re toast. Confident you are a cheetah, but find yourself unable to hold the main chase pack in the swim? Cream cheese. Can hold the main chase pack in the swim, but can’t meet the standard in the run? Lox. Can kick Hackett’s butt in the water, but can’t get under 38 fresh on the track to save your soul? After-dinner mint.

Which category has the most promise? In my view, it’s the sharks, hands down. A betting man might would make the women sharks 2-5 favorites to win the gold medal in Athens. Too many things have to go right for the cheetahs to win. I wouldn’t neglect the cheetah category, but I would probably allocate 75% of the budget to finding the super swimmers.

Does that apply to the men as well? Even more so. In my view, there is a huge opportunity awaiting the right cast of male sharks. Jeez, Walton even won the recent Life Time Fitness race by soloing the entire course. Think what he could do with two or three pals.

So, where do we FIND these people? We COULD identify them in high school, but could we ever GET what we need? Look at the list of U.S. women sharks: Taormina, Lindquist, Gibbs, Reback, Zeiger. Major swim programs were lined up to recruit them. Let’s say USAT had recruited Lindquist upon graduation from high school. Stanford was offering her a full ride for at least four years. That’s $120,000 in today’s dollars, not counting the value of a degree from one the world’s most prestigious institutions. Could USAT hope to compete with that?

The answer is: We ought NOT to compete with Stanford. Let major college swim programs be our minor leagues. USAT needs to prowl the pool decks at major college swim programs, looking for athletes who fit our specifications. Become friends with the coaches, convincing them along the way that we are not interested in these athletes until AFTER graduation. In that way, we pose no threat to the coach’s program . . . plus we are offering the potential of a paying career to athletes in a sport (swimming) whose "pro" career almost always ends when their collegiate eligibility expires.

When we find the right people, we need to recruit them assiduously. Don’t rely on them finding us—great athletic programs are not built waiting for superstars to just walk in the door. Does USAT know that Jan Ripple’s daughter Shelley is a top swimmer at Stanford? She’s certainly got a triathlon pedigree; in fact, if I remember correctly, she even did pretty well in a couple races as a high-schooler. Kim Black (U of Georgia) was a member of the gold medal 4 x 200 free relay team in 2000, and just looks like a great potential triathlete to me. But she’s a candidate for a Rhodes scholarship too, which means we’d have to do some real recruiting there as well.

Just as importantly, USAT should not waste a dime of USOC’s money on people who have no chance for Olympic medals. This is no knock on the bagels and lox of this world—cutting out useless expenses is just good bidness.