Meta
Archive for the ‘Physical Fitness’ Category
Redhawk Resources – Copper Creek
Breakdown
What’s easier to get your head around: running three miles or running 26 miles? Or riding 15 miles or riding 112 miles? The answer is obvious in that shorter distances are more palatable and easier to accomplish. This strategy, known as “Race chunking,” is used by many successful endurance sports athletes to help them manage their pace and set and achieve smaller goals on the way to the finish line.
The concept can be applied to Ironman by breaking up each leg of the race (chunking) into manageable parts as follows:
Swim 2.4 miles: Set the goal of swimming buoy to buoy (or perhaps every other one). Once you reach a buoy, relax your stroke (or flip on your back to do backstroke) for 10-15 seconds, then resume again to the next buoy.
Bike 112 miles: Using your bike odometer, break the bike up into five mile chunks (or approximately every 15 minutes). At this time, stand or soft pedal for a few seconds, drink, eat and monitor your gauges.
Run 26.2 miles: Every other aid stations (or approximately every 15-20 minutes), walk, slow down or change your gait slightly for a few seconds while hydrating.
By using this strategy, you’ll not feel so overwhelmed by the overall distance and cross the finish line having run a well-paced race.
It doesn’t matter…
Did Lance use EPO? Did Lance do transfusions? Did Lance use Testosterone? Well…. it doesn’t matter. Fast forward to a conclusion. Since the circus being led by Novitsky will result in no proof, only he said she said, the results will be circumstantial at best. So what’s the point? So Novitsky can claim he proved a number of schmucks like Greg Le Mond and Landis made certain statements? Really? Wow, that will be breakthrough stuff. Pouring over old testimony and records to restate, with a different spin, some unproven claims? What a waste of tax payers dollars for sure. Hopefully Lance’s attorney will have a counter attack. Go on the offense instead of sitting back and simply answering what has been already answered and proven to be nonsense. Is Novitsky buckin for a promotion? What is his agenda? He is going to save the world from Lance? Only question I have now is, since all that is being claimed today about Lance, was claimed repeatedly over the last several years, why now Novitsky? Because Fool Landis says so? Pathetic.
Lance
Armstrong’s legions of fans refuse to accept the notion, even the possibility, he might have succumbed to the temptation. They don’t want to hear it, regardless of the source. David Walsh, the investigative journalist, or Floyd Landis, a former teammate? Makes no difference. Garbage in, garbage out.
Most of them are Americans.
Cycling’s legions of skeptics, who assume the entire peloton is dirty, are convinced Armstrong cheated, just like everybody else. Pro riders are all pro dopers, too.
Most of them are Europeans — and the vast majority are French.
I have many friends on both sides of this divide and they have asked me, repeatedly, where I stand on the subject. Well, this is going to sound lame as can be, but I don’t know.
For starters, I’m not an Armstrong confidant or insider. I’ve never hung out with him. As a journalist, I like him because he’s a good interview — thoughtful, engaging and unpredictable.
Also, as what the French call a cyclotouriste who has spent hours slogging up and over many of the Tour de France climbs, my admiration for his strength on a bike is boundless.
But that counts for nothing in this debate. The first time I wrote about cycling, in 1999, after Armstrong won his first Tour de France, I made the smart-aleck observation that the peloton surely had to be on dope because there’s no other way to survive what the Tour demands. The grind over three weeks is almost inconceivable in normal human terms, especially with the kind of heat we’ve seen this summer.
A different era
But, to be sure, not everybody is dirty. Not today anyway. The testing is too thorough, too invasive, too sophisticated. And, as frequently as Armstrong, 38, is targeted by the anti-doping gumshoes, it seems inconceivable he would take a chance on beating the system in the middle of the race.
But the Landis accusations date from another era. Was Armstrong blood-doping and using EPO, etc., when he won his seven consecutive yellow jerseys, two of them with Landis at his side every day? Landis insists Armstrong was — and demanding his teammates do the same.
True or false?
Armstrong is innocent: As a teenage tri-athlete, he tested off the charts when his endurance was measured. It was also noted his physiology made him disposed to become a great bike rider, right down to the fact his thigh bones were disproportionately long, ideal for turning the crank. Pre-cancer, he was a gifted enough cyclist to have become the youngest world champion in modern times, and also the youngest, at 21, to win a Tour stage. Pre-cancer, when he was never a yellow-jersey threat and finished just one of four Tours, he weighed 13 pounds more than when he returned to the sport, more motivated and determined. When he won his first Tour, the two men who should have been most able to exploit his personal doubts and insecurities, previous champions Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani, weren’t in the race. Once Armstrong proved he was the Tour’s new patron, the best support riders wanted to work for his U.S. Postal Service team, which had the money to pay its major helpers more than many teams could pay their leaders.
Relentless competitor: Armstrong routinely outworked the competition. Ullrich, his top rival, hated offseason training and tried to ride himself into shape in the early stages of the Tour. Armstrong was 7-for-7 because he might have been the luckiest Tour rider ever. Not once did he suffer a crash that injured him more than superficially during those seven years, covering nearly 15,000 miles. He made it through five Tours in a row without a flat tire. Although possibly the most-tested athlete, Armstrong has never had a verifiable positive result. Landis, an admitted doper and liar, has many reasons to be jealous of Armstrong, and to be vindictive. Deeply in debt and his life in shambles after he finished serving his drug suspension, he sought a spot on Armstrong’s new RadioShack team, only to be turned down. None of Armstrong’s accusers have provided a single, verifiable, “smoking-gun” document that proves their assertions. It’s all “he said, he/she said” stuff.
Armstrong is guilty: Doping was endemic in cycling’s culture when he broke into the big time in the early 1990s. It defies credulity to think he could have sidestepped the pressures to go along.
Win at all costs: Armstrong has an aggressive type-AAA, winning-is-the-only thing personality, and he’s known to obsessively explore every angle to achieve his goals. A number of Armstrong’s U.S. Postal Service team helpers, most prominent among them Tyler Hamilton, Roberto Heras and Landis, failed drug tests after they assumed leadership roles on other teams that arguably didn’t have as sophisticated and well-funded operations. The detail in Landis’ allegations would be difficult to invent and, although the two men were never close off the bike, it begs the obvious that Landis would have been privy to everything that went on behind closed doors.
That’s the sum total of what I know I know. So, with the feds in the picture, the process has only begun.
Chrissie says…
| Chrissie Wellington: PROFESSIONAL WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP QUALIFYING, PRIZE MONEY & POLICIES By Chrissie Wellington 6/30/2010 |
| The following article was sent to us from Chrissie Wellington, and represents her opinions on the recently proposed changes to the qualifying process for pros that was set forth by WTC.
• Excellent that the WTC has circulated this for comment, and is willing to take on board the views of the athletes. This is a step forward and is to be commended. • Agree with the stated goals of the policies, but concerned that the system – as proposed in the email circulated – may not actually achieve the goals specified. Specific comments on Kona Qualification process/ranking system: • Agree that the field size at Kona needs to be reduced, and the strength/depth of field is commensurate with it being a World Championship. However clarification is needed about how the 50 and 30 field size was calculated, and how and why this ratio may alter over time. If it is based on the numbers of WTC pro members then the fact that many of these pro members might not even race an IM, and may be 70.3 athletes, needs to be taken into account. • 1 September is too late for athletes to know whether or not they have a Kona slot. Athletes need to know months in advance whether they have qualified for Kona so as to dedicate the time to training and preparation warranted for participation in a World Championship. Contrary to the stated objective, this policy could actually decrease the quality of performances at Kona as athletes simply do not have the time to prepare effectively. • In addition, the timing will make it difficult for the athletes and their families, sponsors and supporters to book travel and accommodation. (age group athletes will still be able to book accommodation earlier, reducing availability for the pros). If the pro field is being reduced to 80 – and has been around 150 in previous years – will the overall field (eg age group plus pro) size remain the same, and hence the number of age group slots actually increase? This will further serve to exert pressure on limited accommodation and flights making it hard for the pros to book if they are only finding out in September whether they are racing. • Crucially, the new structure reduces the flexibility athletes have in making decisions about whether or not to race a WTC event. Athletes are forced, by the need to accrue points, to only do WTC events, at the expense of other race series, such as Rev3 and Challenge. This is regrettable, as the sport requires diversity in races and not a monopoly held by one brand. WTC should be embracing the growth of the sport, and not placing a stranglehold on it by dictating the choices of professional athletes. • The key issue is that the proposed Ironman/Kona points system seems, ironically, a) to be heavily weighted towards 70.3 athletes; and b) does not necessarily reward a good IM performances to the value which one might expect. This is contrary to the stated goals of the policy. The value of a good ironman performance should be higher, by increasing the points awarded for IM races. It is illogical that the value of winning a 70.3 Championship 70.3 race is the same as winning a $75,000 IM (eg both worth 1000pts) or even that winning the 70.3 World Championship is the same as a 14th at Kona. Kona qualification should be based principally on ironman performance and not 70.3 performance. And (as the policy already states) the converse should apply for Clearwater qualification – eg IM points do not count and so qualification will be based on 70.3 results. • We urgently need clarification about which races are being included under each series, and the dates of these races. If the $100,000 IM races are not until June-August, it could reduce the likelihood that athletes will actually race them, given that they would rather earn points (and secure a high ranking) as early as possible. In addition, given that this new framework could force athletes to race earlier in the season it may deter them from taking a proper (essential) physical and mental break after Kona and increase burn out (or worse, the increased used of performance enhancing drugs). • The system could also be skewed by the place of residence of the athlete. Athletes that live in Europe and North America will have more opportunity to race, and gain points, as there are many more races there, than Asia, Australia and South America (athletes from Asia, Australia and South America may also have to invest more to travel to races – and this may deter them from competing). Conversely, though, the race season starts later in Europe/North America and hence will mean that the opportunity to accrue points in these two continents is later than Australia and Asia and hence could put the European/American athlete at a disadvantage as they will not be able to start accruing points until May onwards. In summary – the field size at Kona should be reduced in line with the numbers suggested and that all those who want to get to Kona should have to do at least one IM to secure their slot. However, given the above limitations the proposed ranking/points framework will need considerable refinement – and it needs to be carefully considered whether the proposed structure is better at achieving the stated objectives than, say, giving automatic qualification to those who win an IM, and then rolling down the additional slots to 2nd/3rd placed finishers (perhaps provided they are within a % of the winners time). If the proposed ranking system is implemented the following improvements could be incorporated/taken into account: • At the very minimum, winners of a Championship ($100,000) ironman race should get immediate qualification for Kona – but ideally all those who win an IM should qualify. At a minimum, a top ten Kona finish should count towards an athlete’s points accrual for the following year. • It may be worthwhile establishing a points level beyond which athletes get automatic qualification. eg – if an athlete reaches a certain amount points by a selected date (eg 1 July) then they automatically qualify for Kona. • The number of 70.3 races that count towards the total should be reduced (perhaps to 2). Kona should be the World Championship for deserving Ironman athletes and Clearwater for 70.3 athletes. • The ranking list should be made public and up to date so that athletes, the media, sponsors, the public etc can see the current ranking. This will enable athletes to take an educated guess about whether they are likely to have a Kona slot; galvanise competitiveness between closely ranked athletes, and also shape what races athletes may chose to do in order to be able to increase their number of points. In addition, it will be important that race start lists are published, so that athletes can determine what races they should enter in order to stand the best chance of accruing the most points (and money). • It is regrettable that the WTC does not seem to value previous Kona Champions through the suggestion that automatic qualification be restricted to 3 years following the last Kona victory. It could be suggested that previous Champions are allowed automatic qualification but that these individuals are additional to the 50/30 field limits. These Champions are the history of the sport, and continue to attract media and sponsor interest. Furthermore many are still racing (ironmans and/or 70.3s) as a WTC pro member and so would not be able to qualify for/or race the World Championships as an age grouper. • Ideally, ironman prize money payment should be for top ten in all races, which will continue to ensure depth at all levels of the series – even if the prize purse for 5th-10th in the $25,000 IM races is only nominal (say $200), at least it will cover transport/accommodation. • Further clarity is needed on the ‘Wild Card’, and the potential ‘holes’ that the WTC refer to. If the wild card is not used for athletes with special circumstances (injury, illness, another external factor), what is it being used for? It is a special friends/Lance Armstrong clause? Can the Wild Card athlete take a slot away from the 30th ranked athlete? • What happens in the event of a ranking tie? • Do athletes HAVE to do five races to qualify – or it is only the top five races that actually count? • The examples given don’t match the points in the table. For example, under Fast Freddy it states that 1st at the 2010 AP 70.3 Championships is worth 1500 but in the table it states that it is worth 1000; and also the Steady Eddy example states that 20th at the 2011 $75,000 IM gets 20points, but in the table it is 25 points. Additional comments • The cost of the one day license still seems incredibly expensive – and prohibitive for many athletes. In addition, clarification is needed regarding the criteria for awarding the license, and whether this then includes membership in the anti doping programme? • It would be useful to see the published list of criteria for determining eligibility for the scholarship membership programme. • Interested to know what steps the WTC will be taking to maximise media interest in the pro races, and thereby achieving the stated goal of increasing media exposure to benefit the pros, as well as their sponsors. • Entry to Kona and Clearwater should be free for all pros (with no increase in cost for age groupers to cover shortfall) • Will the prize purses increase annually? And what is the prize purse for Kona? Will the races have primes to provide additional income opportunities? • Clarification and consistency is needed on prize money payment terms, conditions and timelines. • The top ten placed athletes should all be subject to in-competition anti doping tests at Kona as well as selected random pro and age group athletes. As a minimum, the top 20 ranked male/female athletes from the previous year should be subject to out of competition testing – but if possible all Kona qualifiers should be included in the Registered Testing Pool. • We need a discussion about how to reduce the amount of drafting. One solution would be to send the women off 5minutes behind the male pros and then 20 minutes (at least) in front of the age group athletes. |
New rules..??
Ironman’s proposed architecture
Written by: Dan Empfield
Date: Mon Jun 28 2010
The framework can fix several problems. Calibrating races according to their de facto importance just makes sense. Pros, like AGers, vote with their feet. If, year after year, a strong starting field defies generation even though a $50,000 purse is offered, isn’t it rational to give that purse a haircut, bestowing a historically well-attended race with the largesse it deserves?
But WTC must guard against abuse of the process. These $75,000 purses should go to the better, and better attended, events. WTC shouldn’t try to engineer good fields, rather to reward historically good fields. This process of athlete input should include asking the athletes what races should be awarded the higher prize purses, rather than larger purses being used to bolster an otherwise underperforming race, or to honor a financial deal cut with a city or convention authority.
We also feel WTC’s pain on the issue of qualification. Should a pro make the starting line at Kona through the accident of a cherry pick? No. if WTC is going to pare the field from 180 pro athletes to 80—which it intends to do and will do irrespective of what the pros think (count on this)—then WTC is right: It needs the world’s best 80 pros, and a qualification process makes sense. This, if executed against the backdrop of fairness and egalitarianism.
SERIES QUALIFYING
This is an artful and shrewd idea. Its result, by design—or at least by effect—sucks up all the energy and oxygen available to all athletes seeking to qualify for Kona and Clearwater championships. Through creating a yearlong points competition culminating in a dead sprint ending on the first of September, few but the very best athletes can spare the time to race in a Challenge, an Abu Dhabi (IMG) or Rev3tri event.
This is high risk for Ironman. Starting 15 years ago Euro pros increasingly decided against racing Kona, even if they qualified for it, because the prize money was so low; if an athlete didn’t finish 3rd, he couldn’t pay for this travel expenses to Kona. That trend hasn’t abated. A process designed to keep athletes from racing events other than WTC events may well backfire, and marginalize the talent on Kona’s starting line. WTC needs to take care not to overplay its hand.
Yes, the Hawaiian Ironman has been granted the legal right to be called a world championship. What’s more important, however, is whether the world considers these races world championships. Up until this point, that race has have earned the right by virtue of the stature of its starting field.
Yes, you historically qualify for Kona through racing WTC-aligned events. But there’s always been room in a professional’s calendar to do a few no-WTC races. This new structure places that flexibility in peril: It actively works (whether or not this is the intent) to keep athletes from competing in other events altogether. This marginalizes WTC’s claim that Kona is, in fact, a world championship. Rather, it renders it more like a series championship.
THE CALCULUS FOR WTC
This qualification stampede right up until the bare weeks before Kona is cynical and maybe even dangerous. Has the sport advanced enough to provide viable alternatives to Kona? If so—and we think it has—WTC is playing fast and loose with its brand, treating it in a cavalier way. Certainly, if our recommendations below are adopted, there may be fewer athletes racing its races in July and August, and more of its athletes able to compete in events owned by competing race producers. But if WTC keeps to this exclusive qualification method, it demonstrates a body language that says it’s fearful of the event brands IMG and Rev3 are building.
RECENT HISTORY
Let us remember that WTC has made judgment errors in its policy several times over the past year—all policies from which it’s had to step back: the 8 percent rule; compression wear; enacting rules prior to USAT dispensations. These were small, tactical errors that did little to damage WTC’s brand. But these changes contemplated here are in a different category. How they are implemented, and executed, could bring the world’s great triathlon brand down to the level of the others in its competitive set.
Or, its new policy can raise the Ironman brand to further heights, depending on the care it takes in formulating these changes.
Our recommendation is for Ironman to resist trying to wring every tactical advantage out the construction of this qualifying and prize money framework. WTC has already gotten from the pros a gift of several hundred thousand dollars per year (maybe more) through giving up 100 slots on the Kona pier. Those 100 slots largely “fund” St. George and The Woodlands with AG slots that give these races legitimacy. This legitimacy allows WTC to earn all the revenue that these two races provide it. In return, WTC should honor the sacrifice its imposing on its pros, and, we think its proposed scheme can do that. But it needs to hold true to certain principles. This new framework should increase the worldwide prize purse, not simply in the aggregate, but in the average purse paid out per race or, at least, per important race; it should grant Kona its best possible starting field; it should honor races that deserve money with money.
Our recommended structural enhancements to the framework are two:
1) Establish a point threshold that guarantees Kona and Clearwater entry. If WTC does its homework properly, perhaps 30 men and 20 women will hit that number prior to September 1, and will not be forced into the mad August points rush, the prospect of which demeans the very pros WTC wishes to have attend its events. These athletes can then make travel arrangements at greater leisure, and train for Kona in a way that honors that world championship with top performances by dozens of Kona’s pros, rather than only by the top few.
What should this point total be? Look at the 15th through the 20th best men who competed in Kona last year, and the 10th through the 15th best women. What were the totals accrued, when the point system contemplated is applied to their performances during the season? The average point totals achieved by these high performing men and women would be threshold point totals for automatic Kona qualification status.
2) The time-honored tradition (going back to 1978) of allowing top Kona finishers an auto-requal to Kona is going to be scrapped, based on the published document. That’s regrettable. But it’s worse than that. According to the proposed framework, every other Ironman past September 1st—except Kona—fulfills the requirement of a completed Ironman in order to race Kona.
There is a middle ground. If WTC is going to scrap the auto-requal benefit to a top-10 Kona finish, then at least make a top-10 Kona finish count as the Ironman race the athlete needs to perform prior to the subsequent year’s Kona race. Requiring an Ironman to be raced in addition to Kona—in order to be eligible for Kona—smacks of a desperate attempt to fill unattractive races through a coercive and anti-competitive process.
Ironman is a great brand, and it’s been well-husbanded throughout its ownership, by Valerie Silk, by Dr. Gills, and now by Providence Equity Partners. But WTC’s management team has exhibited a recent history of decisions from which it’s had to embarrassingly crawl back. This, because it announced structural or rule changes without thinking them through; and by taking only its own counsel, rather than by first talking to stakeholders who might not have a corporate blind spot.
WTC’s new architecture can be a big step forward. We applaud the thought; we applaud the effort; and we stand behind the theme. At the same time, WTC needs to remember that it routinely fails when it doesn’t listen to its customers before making a myopic decision. So, we also applaud this period of input. But it needs to be more than perfunctory. It needs to be a true partnership with its customers and, for the purpose at hand, the customers are the pros who patronize and legitimize these world championship events.
Ironman Hawaii
Re-posted courtesy of: RunTri.com
raymondbritt@runtri.com
The Kona Ironman morning routine will be much like your other pre-race experiences, but this one will have a couple of differences. First. you will have to line-up to get formally body-marked – it’s a real process — and the line does not move quickly. It you are the kind that needs plenty of extra time in the transition area to feel relaxed, get to body-marking very early.
Second, there will be television camera crews surrounding the athletes, focusing specifically on the pros and a few pre-selected age groupers. It’s the beginning of everything you’ve seen on the television broadcasts of the race. There’s Natascha Badmann . . . there’s Norman Stadler . . . It will strike you at that moment: This is Real, I am Here. The fun begins.
There’s only one thing to worry about: getting in the water before the cannon fires at 7am. The very narrow stair entrance to the ocean at Dig Me Beach means that it’s a single-file process. The line can extend even farther than the bodymarking line did. If you need to be in the water comfortably a few minutes before the race starts, get there early.
Swim
There is no Ironman swim that is as enjoyable as the one in Kailua-Kona Bay. Unless rough water conditions have churned up the sandy bottom, as happened in 2002, the water is clear and the views are spectacular.
When you’re in the water before the start, just look around. It’s an amazing moment. You are really there. It’s everything you expected it would be. Then . . . boom! And cheers. Off you go.
As you work your way into a good rhythm in the water, you’ll start to notice that you’re among a good, even polite, group of swimmers. Maybe this is more true for the slower swimmers, like me. In other Ironman races, with up to 2500 people in the water at the same time, the congestion can be unreal, the constant contact frustrating.
But in Kona, you only seem to be around good swimmers, ones who know where they are going, who don’t bang into you. You’ll find the swim experience enjoyable because you’re really swimming with a group of swimmers like you. It’s like a group run, you’ll enjoy the company of others around you. It will be a new experience.
And make sure you look down often to take in the scenery. It can be wonderful, and even distracting. But worth it. That’s the part of the swim you’ll remember most.
Others who know better tell me that the Kona swim is typically breezy out to the turnaround, followed by a tougher return. The return to shore has been likened to a ‘water treadmill’; you don’t move forward as fast as you think. No matter, you’re there for the experience. Enjoy it.
Bike
One of the things I looked most forward to was the 112 mile ride through the lava fields. It looked like a spiritual experience as I watched it on television broadcasts, and it was exactly like that when I got there in person. But first, you have to get there.
I break the Kona bike course into five parts: warmup, fast and fun, legendary climb, screaming downhill, headwinds going home.
Warm up
The first several miles of the bike course, in and around the town of Kona, seem to be designed to break up the pack somewhat. There are small climbs and descents that basically give cyclists the opportunity to warm up without going crazy. The first miles are such that you won’t see a lot of passing, and you’ll realize it’s best to just hold your position and get into a comfortable cycling rhythm.
Fast and Fun: to Waikoloa
When you get onto the Queen K highway, the best part of the bike course is ahead of you. The highway is nicely paved, the undulations are friendly and not too challenging. You’re fresh and you’ll feel like picking up the pace a little. Go ahead. Just keep it in check; tougher miles are ahead.
Look right, left and forward. All you will see is dried lava. You’re out in the middle of nowhere, and it’ll be nearly silent, except for the sound of cyclists pedaling. Mile-after-mile through fields that feel like an endless moonscape. Where else will you ever have an experience like that? It’s where you were meant to be.
Your bike computer will say are fast, having a great ride. And that will be a true impression for the first hour or two. But when you reach the intersection for Waikoloa Village, it’s time for some serious work.
Legendary Climb ‘The Road to Hawi . . .’
After Waikoloa, the course will toss some sharp drops and climbs in the next few miles. And then you will take a left turn toward the west side of the island, for the climb to Hawi.
Check it out on the course map, there’s a point where the climb clearly begins, 12 miles before the top. Mile markers on the road will measure your progress. But they will creep toward you, not as fast as you might want them to. You start the climb thinking: 12 miles, that’s not too bad. And yes, it could be worse, but it’s not easy. Take this time to eat and hydrate if you can.
The last five miles to Havi are more exposed to wind, and you may have to battle that additional resistance. Gravity and wind. Not fun. But soon you’ll be in Havi, an unremarkable town but for the role it plays in the Ironman. Then you’re heading downhill.
Screaming Downhill: into the Wind
What goes up, must come down. And after Havi, you will retrace the course back downhill. It’s a manageable downhill, not so fast that you have to concentrate closely on staying in control. But it’s fast enough to help you gain back some of that speed you lost on the earlier climb.
The bad news is that it’s only 12 miles or so downhill. Then things get a little challenging on the next 13 miles heading back toward Waikoloa. The wind may be getting stronger, and it’s all but certain to be blowing right at you.
Headwinds Going Home
You’ll reach the Waikoloa intersection feeling pretty good, and your bike computer might reveal that you’re having a good ride, speed and time. Each time I got there, I was thinking: hold this pace, and you’ll finish near a bike PR!
No such luck in any of those cases. While the last 25 miles are relatively flat, it’s the pummeling headwinds that will all but kill those dreams. I remember riding 12 to 15 miles per hour, and just not being able to pick up the pace.
The winds are maddening. And the mile markers are there, again, constantly reminding you how far you have not gone. Just hang in there. Everyone is dealing with the same conditions. Everyone will tell the same story when the race is over: the winds were everything you heard they would be. Rough.
Run
In 2004, I remember emerging from bike-to-run transition into a blast furnace of the most powerful heat I’d ever experienced on a race course. By the time you start running, the sun will be high in the sky, the humidity will feel like 100%, and the asphalt will be radiating even more heat.
It takes time to acclimate to that kind of heat after swimming 2.4 miles and riding 112. The good news is that first half of the course provides many opportunities to run in the shade, while soaking yourself with ice and sponges at well-stocked aid stations.
After heading east out of town on Alii Drive, the course takes you to an oceanfront turnaround near the 6 mile point. You’ll do a 180 degree turn and head back toward town. The run course is mostly flat for the first 12 miles or so. Then you’re back in town, facing Palani Drive.
A friend and consistent top age-group finisher in Kona tells me: the race begins at Palani Drive. For him, he’s been running the first half of the marathon smartly. He turns it up a notch or two after he runs the 200 yards up Palani, then heads west on the Queen K.
If you want to be competitive in Kona, he is indeed right. The last 13.1 miles in Kona are where the best crack wide open. You are completely exposed to the sun. There are long inclines to wear you down. And yes, for some reason, the several miles into and out of the Energy Lab can suck the life out of you. The competitive racers will use those challenges to their advantage.
The rest of us – I race Kona for fun – can expect to run more conservatively, trying to maintain pace. The Energy Lab may not seem as rough as it does in Ironman broadcasts; it is survivable. Once you’re past that, 21 miles complete, just 5 miles to town, and you’re an Ironman.
The next four miles have never been easy for me. They seem to be constantly uphill, and they go by so slowly. But when you reach Palani Drive, and make that right hand turn after the 25 mile marker, your best moments are ahead.
Finish
Savor that last mile. You will have trained and raced thousands of miles over the years to get there, For the first 1000 meters of it, you will probably be alone. Most of the spectators are at the finish line. In that relative solitude, reflect on all you’ve done to get to that point.
Two right turns later, and you’re on Alii Drive. Sacred Ground. At first you won’t see the finish line, but you’ll hear it. You keep going. Then you see the bright lights, you hear Mike Reilly welcoming home the athletes ahead of you.
Then it’s your turn. The best 100 yards in endurance sports. Slow down. High five spectators., cross the line with your favorite gesture as Mike Reilly says it:
You are An Ironman.
You’ll never be the same. Welcome to the Club.
its here….
Finally they got electronic shifting perfected.
