Business and ethical interests often exist in tension. One likes to think captains of industry struggle when such tensions exist. Are the presidents of fast food chains wistful that saturated fat and corn syrup taste so good and that antioxidents don’t? Does fattening today’s kids and their parents, like so much livestock, give them pause?

As a former captain of industry myself (maybe a private or corporal of industry is a closer approximation) I always found it a happy coincidence when good ethics and good business were on a parallel track. World Triathlon Corporation, owners of the Ironman, is in this lucky situation.

In the wake of the death of 63-year-old George Wright, owner of a 10:48 finish in Kona six weeks before his heart gave out while riding his bicycle with a group of his friends, one cannot escape the question: are two or more Ironman races in the span of several months healthy for working-class family men and women across all age categories?

I don’t know the answer to this question. I do know several people who’ve had serious health problems following or during their Ironman careers. These are not stories I’ve heard of, but people I know: family members, very close friends, who’ve had life-threatening and lifestyle-altering heart and gastrointestinal problems at or proximate to multiple Ironman races.

Do I think Ironman racing caused these problems? No. But, do I think training and racing for multiple Ironman races each year caused these problems? In other words, is two or three, or more, Ironman races per year harder on the body than one? I suspect the answer is more likely to change from "no" to "yes" the closer these races are to each other.

The irony of this is more apparent to me, a veteran of the first Ironman in Kona. I was forced to stop five times during the race to stand on a scale. I and my fellow competitors were not allowed to continue if we lost more than ten percent of our body weight. Nowadays I don’t stop five times to stand on a scale, but I can stop as often as I want to sit at my computer and register for yet another set of Ironman events. Assuming there’s room in the field, I can race one, three or five in the span of a year.

What’s begun to trouble me is that I not only can, but must, race two Ironmans in a year if I intend for Kona to be one of them (unless I race on one of the very few half-distance events that qualify one for Kona, or unless I’ve won my age-group in Kona the prior year). Take George Wright for example. I understand he intended to go back to Kona in 2006. That would mean two more Ironman events next year (this six-time triathlon World Champion would certainly requalify, so two Ironmans in 2006 were a virtual certainty for him).

Is it healthy for any Ironman aspirant -- especially those also burdened with a “civilian” life -- to race four Ironman events in two years? Or six in three years, or eight in four? When I was younger, and did not know better, I would have said that it doesn’t necessarily matter as long as one attends to proper recovery. But I’ve seen the toll Ironman training and racing takes, both on one’s personal life and on one’s body. Now I have a different opinion, although it must be noted that it’s just an opinion and not based on demonstrable scientific fact.

To the degree my suspicion has merit and begs for a remedy, not only is the remedy in WTC’s power, it’s also good for WTC’s business. Ironman races should no longer be Kona qualifiers. Half-Ironman events, or 70.3 events if you wish, should qualify people for Kona. I should think the health and lifestyle benefits would be self-evident, so I’ll simply outline why this benefits WTC's bottom line.

The most obvious impact of making 70.3 events Kona qualifiers will be the instaneous boost for WTC’s 70.3 series, and not at the expense of the full Ironman distance events. Consider Ironman Florida, which fills its 2800-person field within one day of the opening of registration. Only the smallest fraction of these people have any hope of qualifying for Kona, and if the field were open to all who’d wish to enter one might imagine that five, or seven, or nine thousand people are standing in line to enter the Florida event. Certainly the loss of Kona slots is not going to affect this race or, indeed, the fortunes of any Ironman North America event. WTC and IM North America have successfully branded their non-Kona full-distance experiences as bona-fide Ironman finiahes, taking that load off of Kona.

Imagine what it would mean to IMNA’s treasure if it owned its half-dozen Ironman events -- which would still fill up -- plus another eight 70.3 events at which Kona qualifications take place? Imagine what WTC could charge IMNA for the right to stage these events? Imagine what it might be able to charge the promoters of Timberman, Steelman, and the like, for Kona slots?

Qualifying only at 70.3 events also makes everything that is “Ironman” more accessible. What’s bad about safely racing more M-dot races in a season? Is there a negative to having more M-dot events spread around the country, at a distance more achievable for more people? And, of course, is there anything bad about no longer churning and burning your customer base? From my own experience, there is one thing certain to eventually drive people from our sport: excessive Ironman racing. What’s so bad about fashioning for them a sustainable training and racing experience?

One should not forget that WTC is, at its essence, a licensing company. What’s so bad about having 20 events across the country filling with 2000 contestants, instead of six races crammed with contestants on courses already busting their limits? Why not spread out the experience? Would Ford, and Profile Design, and Cannondale, and Timex, think it’s better or worse to have Kona qualifiers all across the country? And is it not better for their association with WTC to have contestants engaging in a sustainable lifestyle?

Here is the sole argument -- finances aside -- for keeping things as they are: Kona ought to be contested by those who’ve proven their mettle over the full distance. I acknowledge this. At the same time, the average Ironman competitor -- age-group competitor, mind you -- swims 12,000 yards per week, bikes 230 miles a week, and runs 48 miles a week. He or she does this for seven months prior to an Ironman. This is according to WTC’s own statistics. Excepting those who win their age-groups in Kona the prior year, everyone else swims, bikes or runs, in average, these amounts, in preparation for not one, but two Ironman events per year. In most cases, there are a scant few months between one’s qualifying Ironman and Kona.

That’s the training. Then there’s the event itself, considered by many or most the hardest one-day physical challenge the sporting world offers. Is it appropriate to ask those thousands in the working world who aspire to race in Kona that they should complete this Herculean event not once but twice (at least) in a year, should things go well and they qualify for Hawaii?

I can see one business hurdle. There are some full Ironman events in other countries that still don’t fiill, or barely fill. What would happen to these races if their Kona slots were taken away and bestowed to half-Ironman events? I think the fortunes of these events would vary, country by country. However, I would note that good races fill. Whether the Wildflower Triathlon or Quelle Challenge Roth, both half and full Ironman races do well when they capture the public’s imagination, even when the lose their Kona slots. Certainly in America one can pull the Kona slots away from the full-distance events and grant them solely to the 70.3 races. If you're not sure you can do this worldwide, do what you can do. Start with North America.

I recognize that this can’t be changed with the flip of a switch. But it ought to be considered for the 2007 season. One Ironman per year should be all that is mandated to Kona's rank and file age-group athletes. Such a change in policy would be good business. And it would be a good thing to do.