Pop Quiz '92 #1

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by Larry Chapm » Sat, 25 Apr 1992 06:05:20


Pop Quiz '92 #1

What piece of illegal  equipment did Paula  Newby-Fraser  use on her way to
winning last year's Ironman in Kona?

Why wasn't she DQ'ed for using it?

 
 
 

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by Larry Chapm » Fri, 01 May 1992 23:16:05

Quote:
> Pop Quiz '92 #1

> What piece of illegal  equipment did Paula  Newby-Fraser  use on her way to
> winning last year's Ironman in Kona?

Long, dangling, ear rings.

Quote:
> Why wasn't she DQ'ed for using it?

Nobody protested.  If they had, she would have been DQ'ed.

Dumb rule.

We hope to remove it this year.

-- LSC

 
 
 

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by John Kruempelstaedt » Sat, 02 May 1992 22:57:33


Pop Quiz '92 #1

What piece of illegal  equipment did Paula  Newby-Fraser  use on her way to
winning last year's Ironman in Kona?

Why wasn't she DQ'ed for using it?

----------
Larry,

I was going to say jewelry because that's in the rule book
but you mentioned equipment.  So now, I'm not sure.  The
Tri-Fed rule book does not cover very much on equipment execpt
for a few general rules (unfair advantage..).  Is this
a trick question?

Maybe the rule book should have a larger section about equipment.
(oops sorry instead of rule book, I meant to say "competition guide" :-).

John K.

 
 
 

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by Tim Sulliv » Tue, 05 May 1992 21:35:01


Quote:
>> Pop Quiz '92 #1

>> What piece of illegal  equipment did Paula  Newby-Fraser  use on her way to
>> winning last year's Ironman in Kona?

>Long, dangling, ear rings.

>> Why wasn't she DQ'ed for using it?

>Nobody protested.  If they had, she would have been DQ'ed.

>Dumb rule.

>We hope to remove it this year.

>-- LSC

        Gee, I didn't know there was a rule against long dangling ear rings!
        I'm suprized that noone complained, as I am sure that it gave her a
        distinct advantage.  I'm certainly going to give it a try at my next
        race, at least when it is no longer prohibited.  I don't want to get
        DQ'ed and loose out on all my prize money.

        But seriously, what part of this rule do you envision removing?  
        Certainly not the part about headsets, radios and headphones.  But
        what about hard casts?  What about neck chains?

        I just had a bazaar thought.  What if someone decided that a wedding
        ring were exposed jewelry?  Would most of the married people get DQ'ed
        then?  Hell, I thought I had enough to worry about just trying to
        find time to train.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sullivan

 
 
 

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by Larry Chapm » Thu, 07 May 1992 01:06:52

Quote:

> Pop Quiz '92 #1

> What piece of illegal  equipment did Paula  Newby-Fraser  use on her way to
> winning last year's Ironman in Kona?

> Why wasn't she DQ'ed for using it?

> ----------
> Larry,

> I was going to say jewelry because that's in the rule book
> but you mentioned equipment.  So now, I'm not sure.

Well, I used the work "equipment" because I figured if I said anything more
specific it would be too easy.

Quote:
> The
> Tri-Fed rule book does not cover very much on equipment execpt
> for a few general rules (unfair advantage..).

Well, it talks alot about wetsuits,  bicycle geometry, bicycle wheels, fins
and such.  What else is there to talk about?

Quote:
> Is this
> a trick question?

Nope.

-- LSC

 
 
 

Pop Quiz '92 #1

Post by Larry Chapm » Thu, 07 May 1992 23:37:42

Quote:

>    Gee, I didn't know there was a rule against long dangling ear rings!

And I quote from 3.1(i) on page 69:

(i) Unauthorized Accessories.

     No participant  shall, at any time during the event, wear a hard cast,
     headset,  radio,  headphones,  exposed  jewelry,  braclets,  earrings,
     neckchains, or any other item deemed dangerous by the Head Referee.

Quote:
>    I'm suprized that noone complained, as I am sure that it gave her a
>    distinct advantage.

The initial intention of the rule was safety.

Quote:
>    But seriously, what part of this rule do you envision removing?  

Probably everything about jewelry items.

Quote:
>    I just had a bazaar thought.  What if someone decided that a wedding
>    ring were exposed jewelry?  Would most of the married people get DQ'ed
>    then?

By the  letter-o-dee-law  -- yes.  Like I said, "dumb rule".  However, if a
swimmer was wearing a ring with a large stone in it and during the swim you
were cut by that ring you'd probably want to be able to take some recourse,
right?

The point of the rule  change  would be to take out  enumeration  of "dumb"
things  and  leave in  general  clauses  like  "dangerous".  That way if an
incident does occur like I mentioned above it can be taken care of.

-- LSC