[edited to add (Sept. 29, 2009): I've gotten a number of hits to this page in the past few days, presumably because the Westchester Tri was this past week-end. Held in the rain, it apparently involved very hazardous seas and a tough bike. I congratulate a few people I know who did it. Apropos to what I wrote about 2007, the run course has now changed. So far as I can tell, additional mileage has been added and it is closer to 10K. Given the slow times -- unlike the swim and the ride it the rain should have enhanced performances -- the course may have been too long.]
I sometimes check-out the Westchester Triathlon Club site. There’s a thread on slots being kept open at the Westchester Triathlon for certain people willing to pony up extra cash for either a charity or, and this is nuts to me, by paying $495 to participate in a training program.
So I posted something about it in the WTC Forum. That race is already pretty pricey, and although you get a nice shirt (which I happen to be wearing right now because it’s a bit chilly), creating this extra fee doesn’t seem right. I wonder the extent to which the Westchester Tri community will raise a fuss.
SSRMC Relay Team, 2007 Westchester Tri, Dave, Bob, and me
I did the run portion of the 2007 Westchester Tri, and it was fun. I came out with a great deal of respect for those who had done all three disciplines, although I am skeptical that civilians can devote the time necessary to perform the best at each of them. I find it tough enough to do that just for running.
But in that race, the “10K” run was about 1/4 mile short, based upon my time and what someone else’s Garmin said. I also spoke to JR, a fine local runner and the wife of the guy who measured it with his wheel, and she shared my amazement that they would ignore the real distance of the run, and I knew it was measured correctly because the mile splits through 5 were spot on. There was no mile 6 mark. (To qualify as a certain type of tri, the swin, bike, and run must be within certain ranges.)
So I raised the issue with the race director. It fashions itself the “Premier Race in the Northeast.” I was blown off: the race didn’t care, no correction to the distance would be made (although, strangely, the results went out of their way to point out that the swim was too short). Then most triathletes to whom I spoke said that they didn’t care how accurate the course-measurement was, that they’re always off. For a runner, of course, this was inconceivable.
This has long bugged me. These folks work really, really hard. How could they not care?
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 13, 2009 at 8:36 am
Sarah
Ha- I DID enjoy the course at VCP! Anything other than circles around Central Park is enjoyable to me.
Thanks for the comment- I am looking forward to the series.
March 13, 2009 at 8:49 am
joegarland
Sarah is referring to the Summer Series of 5K races at Van Cortlandt, which I will write about later because it is one of my favorite running things to do in New York. I commented about it on her blog.
The VCTC folks are uniformly great, and they put on bi-weekly 5Ks from May until August. The races are as laid back or as serious as you want them to be and are a good way to break the monotony of training.
Plus cross-country runners walk a little bit taller than those who only do the roads.
March 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Cowboy Hazel
It’s so annoying when distances or clocks are off at races. You’ve paid your money and put in the training to see what you can do, and then to not have the exact result is very frustrating. That’s one thing I love about NYRR — how they do such a great job at making sure things are as accurate as possible. If only all race directors made the same effort…
March 13, 2009 at 6:49 pm
joegarland
NYRR is not perfect. For one race, a 5K in Prospect Park, the course was short. In the results, however, NYRR owned up to it and included a conversion formula to convert the time over whatever-the-distance was to a 5K. And NYRR’s mile markers, esp. outside of Central Park, can be off.
But I agree that it does a very good job. I do wish “local” (for me, races in Westchester) were as meticulous. So the Tarrytown Pilgrim 4 miler is, by my Garmin, a 3.83 miler.
September 29, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Triathlons: Three Greater Than One? « RunWestchester
[...] Triathlons, Westchester Triathlon I’ve been directly involved with only one triathlon, the Westchester Tri in 2007, in which I ran the running leg. It was fun and I have a lot of respect for those who did [...]
April 15, 2010 at 11:23 am
Triathlons: “I Don’t Have To Outrun The Bear” « RunWestchester
[...] the point about the accuracy of courses, which I discussed in reference to my participation in the 2007 Westchester Tri. [...]
September 7, 2010 at 8:26 am
Tough Guys « RunWestchester
[...] to the more traditional Westchester Tri (which is an Olypmic distance (using “distance” liberally). The course itself looks, well, tough. Rich mentioned Dave and JL when I told him who I was. SSRMC [...]
September 4, 2011 at 12:18 am
cg9m
i guess i can’t stay away…but perhaps this response is a part of the process of distancing-myself..this post’s one that bothered me quite a bit at the time. your op’s on tri’s and distances are well-established. and i believe the last time i saw you was when mh & i volunteered at the westchester tri ’07 event (where the run course was different.) for this race (the ’09 event) your statement that “the rain should have enhanced performances” was in fact, obnoxious. it was an ill-advised go-ahead event under tropical storm conditions. for the run, volunteers were stationed along the boardwalk section of the race through playland (i’m sure you’ll remember that part) shouting at all to “slow down, it’s slippery.” indeed, quite a few “bought real estate” there and ended up in the med tent after. two subsequent sections of the course on the road were submerged. i remember laughing a bit at the first- it was on milton by the firehouse, where we’d recently looked at a property (the realtor told us we’d have to buy flood insurance, and there was no basement)…the second was just past the wainwright house (associated w/rye ymca, and where they hold yoga sessions)…that’s where i fatefully stepped in a hole on the way back, and got a 3rd degree ankle sprain- “L-shaped bruise” and could not support any weight at all on it after the event- it ruined a promising fall season. i have no idea even now how i managed the finish. it was chilly enough (and wearing shorts/t) that i couldn’t hobble back to the turn-around and wait for assistance. i was also part of a relay and felt obligated from that to continue (i think i’ve finally gotten past the psychological fallout from that and may attempt another (short) relay in future). at the time, post-race, i wished i could post a pic of the injury, but my left ankle has so much built-up multiple-sprain-related scar tissue from a ligament tear in high school that you couldn’t tell by comparison how bad it was on the right (it’s obvious now). to get to the crux of it, tho- your beef was with the tri course distance. regardless of distance, no one posted decent times in the run, even relay. i think that’s a testament to the race conditions. i actually think it’s an accurate 10k now.
…and one more point re tri’s-and-distances. the first one i ever did was harriman, noted for being ‘the toughest’ sprint in the area. most who do that race know that both the bike and run are ‘short’ and the website even used to say that the swim distance varied (don’t know if it still does.) for me, and for other triathletes, it was the bike course that ‘mattered.’ sometimes they varied the start from one parking lot to another at sebago…but mainly, it’s “how fast can you do that loop”, and i found that “breaking one hour” was apparently “the goal” for many. to date, i haven’t managed it. i worked like h*ll to try. maybe you have to do it to understand, but the distance isn’t relevant. kinda like your long-ago twit to me about the hook mountain hill…but you’re not gonna run something like that anywhere close to your regular road race pace. it’s a specific thing you train for at a specific point in the race- you hedge your bets, hope you didn’t go out too hard, and hope you have enough left over after the top. tiorati brook on the bike is a good mental prep for the hook half…i don’t think races like that are about exact distance, but about time-and-placing, give or take a few meters. (i realize for a “seconds matter” guy like you, that would be frustrating.)
September 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm
JoeGarland
C,
Thank you for the clarification on the course conditions. I saw “slow” times for the “10K”, knew the course was at least closer to a 10K than when I did it, and figured that because the weather conditions were good — rain as opposed to brutal heat — the only explanation was the course was too long. In other words, I was saying not that the runners were slow but that they are not slow and thus the course must be long. Apparently not true.
It strikes me, though, that it’s hard to “neutralize” (a cycling term for when racing is not allowed) a run course. If you’re going to essentially tell runners not to race over a portion of the course — and I think that a slippery boardwalk is not a place to race — you should try to remove that portion from the course. In 2007 when I did it, the Westchester Tri shortened the swim leg because it had difficulty setting up the buoys. It so advised athletes afterward. (Part of my problem with the too-short course was the race’s refusal to acknowledge that for the “10K”. I knew it was short. It knew it was short. Why not just say so?)
Instead by keeping the boardwalk and trying to slow racers down you’re asking for trouble. You don’t want some to push it too hard, but by including it in the race you are rewarding the risk-taking. Even a hard-ass like me would understand that I ended up doing under a 10K under the conditions. Plus I’d understand that if I was conservative on the boardwalk I was not put at a disadvantage to someone who was reckless.
Note that I said nothing about the swim or bike legs. They are inherently variant and more susceptible to conditions. (And I have ridden a time trial at Harriman.) But for the run portion, it should be accurate, and the Westchester Tri presumably agrees since it now appears to be accurate. Alas, part of that may be my runner’s mentality. I do understand, though, that there are running conditions that throw the pace out the window. Weather. The course. We all know that a VCP 5K bears little relationship to a flat road one.
As to your “misstep”, I sympathize. I’ve gone down in hidden holes, although fortunately muddied and not bruised. And I appreciate your obligation to the team. Did you know that I was behind a change of rules at Reach-the-Beach to deal with the JL situation? In 2006 JL hurt her hip running leg 11. Instead of stopping, she dragged her leg to the next exchange where Lisa took over, not wishing to let the team down. She ended up on crutches, not doing another leg and pretty well ruining her running for quite a while. The rule change? At the time the rule was: if JL stopped, Lisa (leg 12) had to finish JL’s leg and me (Leg 1) had to do Lisa’s leg. This meant that Van 1 would have to double back on the course in the nighttime (against the flow of traffic) to the 11-12 exchange so I could go, which meant that our team would have lost loads and loads of time. The new rule would allow Lisa to finish 11 and run 12. After the race I emailed the race director and explained what had happened and why I thought a rule-change made sense. The rule was changed, although I don’t know if it was because of me.
Finally, the last time you saw me was not at the 2007 Tri (I remember where you and Meghan were) but a couple of years back, on the BRP path. I waved. You didn’t.
September 5, 2011 at 11:46 pm
cg9m
well…re harriman bike course. some faster folks i know have registered it as 15+ on their bike computers. i’ve never had it over 14.7. i don’t know how it’s measured, honestly. but i’d still say to me, and the folks who do it, the distance doesn’t matter. ‘can you break an hour’? and for those under an hour, obviously, it’s where they place. for fastest, course record..
for a die-hard runner, and especially a current-or-former track athlete, accurate distances at the traditional cut-offs really matter…in road races. if you’re trying to win, score a pr, etc. i’m definitely conscious of 10k distances in road races (for whatever reason, i never ‘raced’ a 10k, or a marathon, when i was younger, so i can actually ‘pr’ at those two…lol, technically.) but in tri’s, it’s different. i am glad it seems you caught a little of what i was saying wrt to them…perhaps it’s from comments from other triathletes. i worried i hadn’t gotten my point across very well there.
still, i’ll emphasize the ‘course-dependent’ factor wrt distance. it’s a bit hairy. i remember in hs/college i despised hilly courses, and avoided them whenever possible. i wanted to run my best time. i ignored what many said that “they’ll make you stronger.” (note, i did run some pretty hilly courses, like the infamous ‘hereford invitational’).
i’ve changed my mind.
or, maybe it’s just that i’ve gotten older, and that running slower times has become a fact of life. (but i do think tough courses make you stronger.) sometimes, i think my only goal is “to not get slower.” lol. but hills really help.
and so. a final thought i had about this post, earlier today. when i ran briefly in ’09 winter w/wtc, coach mike had us do a variety of speedwork at rockies. all mostly uphill. i’ve tried to replicate some of the workouts on courses where i am now. i’ve found what i think is a great place to do ‘mile’ repeats. i’ve also found a great place to do what i think are between 1K to 1.2K repeats (hilly). for the latter, despite my best intentions, i’ve either forgotten the garmin, forgotten to charge it, or it’s lost satellite (common around here), so i don’t know the exact distance. but i remembered what coach mike (who has quite the glib sense of humor) said about the mile repeats at rockies, “some garmins have it at 0.98. some have it at 1.1. maybe it’s the trees. as far as i’m concerned, and i’ve been bringing people here for 25 years, it’s a mile.”) the point of speedwork is to push yourself. if you’re off by a few meters, it doesn’t make much difference.
i could go on about this…i was employed for several years out in jersey, not close to a track (well, there was the one at pascack hs, but it was closed to public parking, despite it being a public hs, and the fence was always locked, so you had to climb it, which always made me feel like a 30+-year-old hoodlum…) so, i did my speedwork on the road. mostly 800′s. sometimes, oddly, with hashers. and i only ran 1 or two races a year. much to the chagrin of the soundshore folk (who were in spirit, supposedly ‘recreational’). oh yeah! so. i am flattered you’d compare me to jl. she is a far more dedicated athlete than i am- i can’t imagine pushing myself so hard after such an injury. and her times reflect her commitment and ambition, esp ag. i just try to do my best based on my physical limitations.