andre slade / News: BLOG: Coolangatta Gold rules need to be sharpened up

BLOG: Coolangatta Gold rules need to be sharpened up

OPINION: Well the Coolangatta Gold has been raced, the champions crowned and the also-ran's clapped through the finishing chute.

Well done to Caine Eckstein and Courtney Hancock for your fifth and first wins respectively - you are amazing athletes (and I picked you in the quinella). 

Mother nature, or Huey the surf God, dished up what many experienced competitors suggested were the most difficult conditions of the event's history - and I'd have to agree with them after slogging my way through the ocean swim leg in what could only be described as a vicious washing machine.

What an epic race!

For some it was all a bit too much to contend with. Competitors were pulling out before the start, others before the turn at Northcliffe and then there were the multiple casualties throughout the length of the course. 

It wasn't anywhere near needing to be called off - but it was challenging - and retirements are inevitable in any endurance race.  

Which brings me to one of the event rules I was unlucky enough to get to know more than I had ever anticipated.

It was this rule that sadly prevented a number of extremely competent teams from finishing the race at all.

Unfortunately I was part of one of these teams so herewith I lay my vengeance down.

At Burleigh Heads my board paddler was stopped by officials from tagging my runner to finish the race.

He had struggled through the board leg in atrocious conditions and so we were about 10 minutes over the cut-off time - I couldn't believe it!

We weren't an elite team or anything, but we also weren't slouches either - and we definitely weren't last.

'What's the cut-off time' I asked the officials,

'1 hour 40 minutes after the first competitor through in your category' they said,

'But they're still allowed to continue' I said pointing at an Open Mixed Team heading through the transition,

'Yes but their leader wasn't as fast' the officials replied.

And there you have it. One of, if not the most stupid rules I have EVER heard of in an event.

How could you possibly have a rule by where the time the competitors in the category has to complete the course is based on the fastest competitor or team? 

It simply isn't logical for any reason whatsoever.

This means your ability to finish the race is completely dependent on the speed of the fastest competitor or team in your category. Leading team is fast - you better be fast, leading team is slow and you can take your time.

There's no safety element to this. There's no objective-based time set by the start gun. This is completely unfair and ill-conceived and that's before you add the inclement weather conditions to the equation.

If the Open Mixed Teams were still running through, why on earth couldn't we?

As it turns out my runner took off and finished the event - we hadn't all trained this hard to stop it there with a foul taste in our months.

We finished in 6 hours 15 minutes. The fastest in our category was 4.20 (second fastest course time of the day). 

These times mean that had we made it through that transition we would have been within the 2-hour cut-off time at the finish.

The fastest mixed team finished in 4.50, 30 minutes behind the fastest Open Male Team - effectively giving teams in that category an extra 30 minutes before the cut-off - and we STARTED AT THE SAME TIME!

If that doesn't prove it's a stupid rule, then you only have to take a look at the slowest time by any competitor of the event - that was 7.16 by a 40-49 male.

So not only were we duped by having a fast category leading team, we would have completed the course an hour faster than the slowest competitor!

It was obvious that the conditions made for slower going than usual, so why isn't there room to move with times?

Surely in any race like this the logical way to work out cut-off times for the race is from the starting time? Wouldn't it make more sense to say the race has to be completed within, say, 7 hours from the start?

If the organisors want to be off the beach by a certain time then start the slower categories first, and start the whole event earlier.

By the time I got to the finish line to see our runner 'finish' I had the feeling the organisers just didn't want to be there. It made me wonder whether the event was being run for the competitors or the officials - because it definitely didn't seem competitor friendly to me.

People have trained all winter, they've financed themselves from all over Australia to be here and have no-doubt been excited about participating for months if not years.

The least the organisers can do is have logical and realistic targets for race times - and not be in such a rush to pack up.

And before you say it's only the also-rans that have this problem, you'll want to be carefull - it's the also-rans that make the event.

Without them there would be no Coolangatta Gold.

It's the also-rans that make up the numbers, pay the bulk of the entry fees and allow the event to be held at all - no also-rans = no Ironmen; no Andre Slade's = no Caine Eckstein's.

At the end of the day I got to compete in the iconic Coolangatta Gold. I finished my part - and I even passed a few people during my legs to feel like it was a race - I could go home happy I'd completed my goal and it was great to share it with mates.

Now it's time for me to go wash of my race numbers - I've left them on long enough to bask in my own glory.

Next year I'd love to be able to have a go at the full length Gold, but I don't think I'll have the time to train.

I'd definitely give the half a go though.

Other observations

• Missing safety vests? I was looking through photos of the event today and noticed Caine and Nathan weren't wearing their race vests during the swim leg. That's a direct violation of the event safety rules and should have been penalized - was it? Not only does it undermine the safety and integrity of the event it sends a message to others that the rules can be flaunted without penalty. I'm the last person who'd want these two athletes to be penalised, and I hate wearing them, but the reality is that there is one set of rules for everyone and we don't have to go back far to understand why we're wearing them in the first place.
• Compulsory paddler support in ocean swim. After having completed the ocean swim leg and experienced first-hand how tough and unforgiving it was, I am in no doubt that it should be compulsory for every swimmer to have a support paddler on a board. Not only was it near impossible to see where you were going - with large rolling swell and white water, there were only 3 support vessels in the entire leg. If you got rolled by a wave, ingested too much water, started convulsing and slipped under the water you'd never be seen again. Which leads back to my first observation...
• No to a pre-event endurance race test. There has been suggestions that the organisers will hold an endurance event in the days leading up to the Gold to make sure all competitors are up to the standard. Surely this is a farce. And it wouldn't work anyway. It couldn't be the same length as the Gold, because then it'd be the Gold, so it'd have to be something shorter, in which case what's it going to prove? and it'd have far too much of an impact on the actual Gold itself. Athletes enter this race to push their bodies to the limit to see what they can take. Retirements from the race are inevidable, if there weren't any it wouldn't be that aspirational in the first place. If there's a solid safety management plan in place these can be dealt with as they happen.
• A half-Gold will solve all our problems. I've said it before and I'll say it again, introduce the half-Gold length race for Open Men and all categories and you'll solve all the problems at once. You'll open up the event to more people of more abilities, increase participation (and therefore more money and sponsorship) and you'll have a qualifying event for the Open Men right there. You want to compete in the full-length Gold? You must first compete the half.

What do you think?

(c) Andre Slade 2011. 

The views expressed in this blog are entirely that of the author and do not reflect the views of ASE clients.