Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Clyde Divisions starting at 200lbs...WTF!

Don't know if anyone else has an opinion of this and I don't mean to make any enemies when I say, I've already heard the diatribes of the 210 pounders opinion's but any other folks out there that just want to spit every time you roll up to the start of the Clyde division and there's half a dozen racers that are weighing in under 225lb....even under 250lbs, look as if they're carrying maybe ten percent body fat and MOST DEFINITELY should be gritting up and racing the sport class. In my opinion, it's just another form of sandbagging and race organizers should recognize this garbage and do something about it (say, weight classes, going up every fifty to a hundred pounds). I dig that you're six foot five and that has you weighing in at 232lbs. but c'mon man, take your thirty-six inch waist and get in one of the sport divisions and let us truly large fellas not let all of our training and hard work have to take a backseat in the standings to your sandbagger ways.
I can't tell you how many times I was racing (mountain bikes) and I'm beating the other big big clydes and come rolling into the finish only to find out I'm fifth in my division and the cat that finished fourth was in about ten minutes before me...I'm NOT being a sore loser, what I'm being is an experienced racer that recognizes when the first second third and even fourth place finishers are upwards of fifteen/twenty minutes in before the rest of the field, those are individuals racing in the wrong class and the divisions have been set too lax to allow for serious competition.
There must be a way to start a grassroots push to make the lowest Clyde weight 250lb. and a recognition of division dedicated to the REALLY big racers. I dunno, this rant comes after looking at the comical results of last years Clydesdale National Championships...a bunch of really tall, a bit over two hundred pounders calling themselves Clydes...

Okay "skinny clydes" you can begin your attack now...;)

Ask to sit on their bike and pop the frame or forks then apologise that he has his bike in the wrong section - or maybe I am too aggressive

Well, in the true circular firing squad that the sport seems to be, I guess you can lobby for that...

Once you do, guys who are 300 pounds will start asking for that to be the cutoff etc. etc. etc.

I go about 215, and I'm 6'3" so I suppose I would be in that zone by your definition but am not super quick, and don't have 10% body fat, do I get my own category? :D

nah you just have to pick 3 inches to cut off :D

I could see a split at 250 for a 'SuperClyde' category, but then where do you stop? >300 = MegaClyde? >400 = UltraClyde? >500 = PlanetClyde? ;)

I kid. Of course I understand your frustration, but aren't most of us in this to get fitter? If you're a big boy at 255, aren't you hoping your athletic endeavors will help you drop weight and get stronger? At what point would you decide to stop 'sandbagging' and join your age group?

I've not been below 200 since college (except when I had a post-surgery illness and dropped to 187). That said, in triathlon shape I go about 6'2" 205, and may drop below 200 at some point. If that happens, I'll go with my age group, but I assure you I'm not going to be one of the top clydes or age-groupers in any race I enter (my >10min/mi run pace will see to that). :D

Jim

Well, in the true circular firing squad that the sport seems to be, I guess you can lobby for that...

Once you do, guys who are 300 pounds will start asking for that to be the cutoff etc. etc. etc.

I go about 215, and I'm 6'3" so I suppose I would be in that zone by your definition but am not super quick, and don't have 10% body fat, do I get my own category? :D

No. You get the age group sport class...I'm 6'3" and know exactly what 215 looks like on a 6'3" frame...it doesn't look like a Clydesdale.

I would think most clydes that are far from being "athletically proportioned" are not really interested in racing. I mean, lets face it, being overweight does not lend itself to being competitive in athletics. That's great that you are racing and doing well, but I don't see how realistically you can get things to change.

Trying to get a 250+ lb racing league will probably be as successful as trying to start a pro basketball league for guys under 6 ft tall.

At what point would you decide to stop 'sandbagging' and join your age group?

I think you join your age group when the time you've finished in for the Clyde division breaks into the finishing times of the sport div racers...that's my deal; these yahoos were winning the Clyde division but coming in at times that would place them out of "win/place/show" finish of the sport class but still in the top ten of the sport division...Trophy chasing sandbaggers!!!!

As far as how far do you take the divisions, well I just like a "super clyde" or something at 300lbs. because there aren't many of us 300+ racers but we're big, bad and out there. And while I can ride the same distance and even have a close to the same burst off the line as a 225lb. clyde, how in the world is it fair that a 375lb. guy be competing against a guy that weighs 208lbs.

I wonder how hard it is to put a race together?

I think you join your age group when the time you've finished in for the Clyde division breaks into the finishing times of the sport div racers...that's my deal; these yahoos were winning the Clyde division but coming in at times that would place them out of "win/place/show" finish of the sport class but still in the top ten of the sport division...Trophy chasing sandbaggers!!!!

OK, agree with this. If you're winning the Clyde division with times that are competitive in age group, you should be competing in age group, no doubt.


As far as how far do you take the divisions, well I just like a "super clyde" or something at 300lbs. because there aren't many of us 300+ racers but we're big, bad and out there. And while I can ride the same distance and even have a close to the same burst off the line as a 225lb. clyde, how in the world is it fair that a 375lb. guy be competing against a guy that weighs 208lbs.

I wonder how hard it is to put a race together?

So you're talking BIG boys. Gotcha now. I think an all-clyde race with different weight classes would be a blast, personally.

Good topic.

Jim

The number is what it is. Make it 190 or 290. There's always room to *****. Same with road racing. It's the category you're in so go compete if you can, zip it if you can't.

6'6", 245 pounds.
If I were to go back and race a tri, I'd easily be among the more "average" body type of the Clydesdale div racers.

Back in my racing heyday I was under 10% bodyfat. 6'6", 215 pounds. Yeah, I'll admit to taking advantage of the Clydesdale division for many a race. I was 18 at the time. I just capped out of an age division I was dominating: 15-17. I pulled my first race in the 18-22 age div. and got slaughtered, and very disappointed, so I took full advantage of the only weapon I had; my size. At 6'6", it's been a looong time since I've seen the lighter side of 200 pounds. I first saw the Clyde division in a Budweiser sponsored race in Columbus, Ohio back in 1992. There were 5 of us on the starting line for the entire division, and everyone was in similar shape to me. The end of that season, and my tri-racing career, was a horrible wreck that put me off riding for over a year, so I never saw the further development of the Clyde Division past those few races I was in with very few other racers.

Clyde comes from the triathlon world. 200 was the initial setpoint and 300+ is an Uberclyde, as I understand it.:D

Being a clyde and 55 years old. I'm hear to tell you it doesn't get any easier with the age groups. A 55 year old will have to go in the over 40 or sometimes the over 35 age group. Twenty years difference is as hard to make up as 100lbs. plus in the age group you have guys who have ridden all their lives {some retired pros**and never stoped like I did to raises a family or meet commitments. If you look at the times the over 40 group will usually beat the 20 somethings.

30 years ago, I weighed about 230, but performed streenous work on a daily basis. Now I'm 245 and am relatively sedentry. Similar weight, but about 8" more around the waist.
Should I compete against myself? 2 very different bodies!
I don't see how one can really divide things up to suit everybody without having many divisions with 1 or 2 riders.
If you are really doing it for "fun", than just compete against yourself and try to set new personal bests.

30 years ago, I weighed about 230, but performed streenous work on a daily basis. Now I'm 245 and am relatively sedentry. Similar weight, but about 8" more around the waist.
Should I compete against myself? 2 very different bodies!
I don't see how one can really divide things up to suit everybody without having many divisions with 1 or 2 riders.
If you are really doing it for "fun", than just compete against yourself and try to set new personal bests.
That's pretty much what I do.....I could care less if I come in first or last, as long as I cross the line under my own power!:D

That's pretty much what I do.....I could care less if I come in first or last, as long as I cross the line under my own power!:D

To borrow from the .sig of a fellow multi-sport poster on another board:

DFL > DNF > DNS

Jim

...I'm fifth in my division and the cat that finished fourth was in about ten minutes before me...I'm NOT being a sore loser, what I'm being is an ...

Yes you are. If you had finished first, this wouldn't be an issue. Life's not fair...get over it. Now go drop some weight, and compete on more level terms. Or, just beat 'em anyway.

Me? I don't consider myself a "skinny clyde": 265 lbs. I won a race against some 175 lb-er in a cat 5 race a few years back. He felt bad. I felt great. I had many other good results, many podium finishes within my age group. Only once did I race with a clyde category (2nd place: won $25--paid registration). Today? I've been regularly outclimbing a local 125 lb woman cat 3 racer lately. Still can't climb with the 150 lb cat 3/4 men, but I can follow them on the flats and rollers no problem.

I would think most clydes that are far from being "athletically proportioned" are not really interested in racing. I mean, lets face it, being overweight does not lend itself to being competitive in athletics. That's great that you are racing and doing well, but I don't see how realistically you can get things to change.

Trying to get a 250+ lb racing league will probably be as successful as trying to start a pro basketball league for guys under 6 ft tall.

With this line of thinking you're absolutely right...nothing could/would change.

30 years ago, I weighed about 230, but performed streenous work on a daily basis. Now I'm 245 and am relatively sedentry. Similar weight, but about 8" more around the waist.
Should I compete against myself? 2 very different bodies!
I don't see how one can really divide things up to suit everybody without having many divisions with 1 or 2 riders.
If you are really doing it for "fun", than just compete against yourself and try to set new personal bests.

They don't seem to have a problem dividing up a multitude of groups for the am, beg, exp, pro and/or age groupers...each one of those has half a dozen divisions per...there's ONE Clyde division typically.

Yes you are. If you had finished first, this wouldn't be an issue. Life's not fair...get over it. Now go drop some weight, and compete on more level terms. Or, just beat 'em anyway.

Me? I don't consider myself a "skinny clyde": 265 lbs. I won a race against some 175 lb-er in a cat 5 race a few years back. He felt bad. I felt great. I had many other good results, many podium finishes within my age group. Only once did I race with a clyde category (2nd place: won $25--paid registration). Today? I've been regularly outclimbing a local 125 lb woman cat 3 racer lately. Still can't climb with the 150 lb cat 3/4 men, but I can follow them on the flats and rollers no problem.

Don't be such a tool...do you think in racing since 1985 and several of those years as a sponsored (pays all my bills) pro, I haven't seen the podium? I have, and I still am of the opinion that the Clyde division isn't and never has been taken seriously and we're out there, just look at the membership of this sect of the forum. Now a bunch of you talk up weight loss and what's it matter yadda yadda yadda and I knew there would be a couple, "if you had won..." people talking without the know, but no, I'm not being a sore loser...a Sandbagger is a virus in the sport and a p***y in a bike race. But I'm not busting ass, training for these races, so some 6'4" 210er who wants to put on a good show for his girlfriend by cherry picking an easy win in the clyde division is bull****!

Hey, good job on your win though! That rocks!

Does the category exist in races where there is real money on the table?

I can understand the frustration, even though I'm sure you're faster than I am (hard not to be :)) But it's not sandbagging if someone qualifies for the category. It may not be as much of a challenge as they should be setting themselves, but sandbagging is kind of a bit of a vicious charge to level at someone (at least in my experience in other activities where there was handicapping.)

Does the category exist in races where there is real money on the table?

I can understand the frustration, even though I'm sure you're faster than I am (hard not to be :)) But it's not sandbagging if someone qualifies for the category. It may not be as much of a challenge as they should be setting themselves, but sandbagging is kind of a bit of a vicious charge to level at someone (at least in my experience in other activities where there was handicapping.)

No man, I'm not meaning to pick on the 5'9" racer that weighs in at 215 with an avg. speed of 4.5mph...more power to those guys, I'm actually trying to take a stand for the guys that have the burn to race in their blood and the guts to go do it - AWESOME! But it's those guys that really no more than their height has put them into our category, these same yahoos ride with their buddies (not clydes) every weekend, keep up and even beat them in fun training, "race ya' to the next whatever" sprints, etc. etc. Guys that could be competitive in their perspective sport class or age group but instead opt for the pursuit of easier competition by eeking their way into the Clyde division for a better final standing. Even if they just changed the min. weight to 250lb. it would force a lot of those clowns into the groups they should be. But no I agree that a qualifying weight doesn't automatically make you a sandbagger...and i DEFINITELY apologize if I offended anyone (not my intent)...I really shouldn't have even begun to name numbers at all...because I don't mean to suggest that any clyde is more clyde than another...Sandbaggers know EXACTLY who they are and they are COMPLETELY aware that they are sandbagging when doing so. When racing was my life, I never once raced below my division, not a single time ever...you don't get better that way, you get better by pushing yourself our of your comfort zone.

Is there any evidence that a guy that's 210 is capable of higher speed than someone of comparable build who weighs, say, 240 or 270?

It's clear that a 5'8 guy who weighs two lbs / inch of height is going to beat you in a Marathon, and probably an endurance bike race. But what about a guy who weighs three lbs / inch of height versus one who weighs 3.5 lbs / inch, with similar body fat percentage?

It's clear that a 5'8 guy who weighs two lbs / inch of height is going to beat you in a Marathon, and probably an endurance bike race. But what about a guy who weighs three lbs / inch of height versus one who weighs 3.5 lbs / inch, with similar body fat percentage?

Maybe that's the answere.......instead of a weight minimum, maybe the class should be linked to a height to weight ratio as a minimum. It could be kept simple with a scale & tape measure.

I know what your saying about sand baggers, I always moved up in difficulty as soon as possible in order to get better, but not all people are like that. They have to live with themselves though...and everyone knows the real score.

I'm 5'11" and when I was racing B/Cat-3 in my younger days I weighed 160 lbs dripping wet. Years later, I've rediscovered serious cycling but I weigh 220, and I am very much a "fatty".

So chill out a bit. Not every sub-250 clyde is lean muscle.

I'm not a racer (of ANY type) and don't wish to beome one. The only "clydes" and "uberclydes" I know are those in this forum. If racing orginizations arbitrarily designate any >200# racer as a clyde, then those are the rules. Don't like the rules? Get them changed, race with another orginization, or live with the existing rules. In racing, from what I understand, the modus opperandi is to find every loophole in the rules and turn them to your advantage if possible. Just commenting as an outsider looking in...

imho, clydes under 250 are not clydes.

All I can say is that we inherited the standard from the tri world.
Don't know if anyone else has an opinion of this and I don't mean to make any enemies when I say, I've already heard the diatribes of the 210 pounders opinion's but any other folks out there that just want to spit every time you roll up to the start of the Clyde division and there's half a dozen racers that are weighing in under 225lb....even under 250lbs, look as if they're carrying maybe ten percent body fat and MOST DEFINITELY should be gritting up and racing the sport class. In my opinion, it's just another form of sandbagging and race organizers should recognize this garbage and do something about it (say, weight classes, going up every fifty to a hundred pounds). I dig that you're six foot five and that has you weighing in at 232lbs. but c'mon man, take your thirty-six inch waist and get in one of the sport divisions and let us truly large fellas not let all of our training and hard work have to take a backseat in the standings to your sandbagger ways.
I can't tell you how many times I was racing (mountain bikes) and I'm beating the other big big clydes and come rolling into the finish only to find out I'm fifth in my division and the cat that finished fourth was in about ten minutes before me...I'm NOT being a sore loser, what I'm being is an experienced racer that recognizes when the first second third and even fourth place finishers are upwards of fifteen/twenty minutes in before the rest of the field, those are individuals racing in the wrong class and the divisions have been set too lax to allow for serious competition.
There must be a way to start a grassroots push to make the lowest Clyde weight 250lb. and a recognition of division dedicated to the REALLY big racers. I dunno, this rant comes after looking at the comical results of last years Clydesdale National Championships...a bunch of really tall, a bit over two hundred pounders calling themselves Clydes...

Okay "skinny clydes" you can begin your attack now...;)

I haven't read everyone's posts, but I am 6'3" and at 199 pounds I will just reach the BMI top range of the normal. I can say at 215, I will still feel overweight, but I will work very hard at anything I do and will still be classified as a clyde. I was thinking of running in a 2 mile this fall, but they are thinking of dropping the clyde's class, because it is not politically correct.

I am still over 45 pounds away from my first goal weight and would really like to lose 60 more. I will see how I feel at these other weights first. But my goal is to be at least under the clyde status. My physical shows that I am in good condition with great blood workup. I plan on keeping it that way for years to come. Bicycling is going to be one of many ways for me to do that.

Have fun with your sport and race if you like. I will consider myself a clyde until I am under the clyde weight. I will run/swim/bike/ as fast and as hard as I can because that is how my brain works. I am sorry if that would offend you. I don't enter any events at this time, but it is something I may do in the future.

Being a clyde and 55 years old. I'm hear to tell you it doesn't get any easier with the age groups. A 55 year old will have to go in the over 40 or sometimes the over 35 age group. Twenty years difference is as hard to make up as 100lbs. plus in the age group you have guys who have ridden all their lives {some retired pros**and never stoped like I did to raises a family or meet commitments. If you look at the times the over 40 group will usually beat the 20 somethings.

one of the race series her has a 55+ category and a 57+ category. As for the clydes I would be happy if they had a couple of age groups in the clyde category, a 45+ clyde racing a 20+ clyde is what isn't fair. I can hold my own against a 45+ clyde, but I get stompped on by the 20+ clyde.

Dude it's a weight class that the other racers were qualified for, right or wrong they have every right to be there, just take it as a chance to compete against the skinny clydes you destest. I'm not defending them, as a matter of fact I fully feel for you, I remember in high school wrestling my coach would bump me between 189 and heavyweight (up to 275lbs). I remember weighing in at Johnsonburg High in 2000 at 180lbs and wrestling a guy who weighed over 260lbs. Now that's a huge weight difference and one that was defiantly not in my favor. This guy was a tank. I was still able to beat him as he had sloppy form but just saying, you take the cards your dealt and make the best of it. Maybe you aught to take up another sport where your body type can work to your advantage.

With that in mind yes people who take advantage of class divisions should DIAF. Would you cheer for a guy with mild ADD winning the Special Olympics? Sort of the same thing unless I missed your point altogether.

Don't know if anyone else has an opinion of this and I don't mean to make any enemies when I say, I've already heard the diatribes of the 210 pounders opinion's but any other folks out there that just want to spit every time you roll up to the start of the Clyde division and there's half a dozen racers that are weighing in under 225lb....even under 250lbs, look as if they're carrying maybe ten percent body fat and MOST DEFINITELY should be gritting up and racing the sport class. In my opinion, it's just another form of sandbagging and race organizers should recognize this garbage and do something about it (say, weight classes, going up every fifty to a hundred pounds). I dig that you're six foot five and that has you weighing in at 232lbs. but c'mon man, take your thirty-six inch waist and get in one of the sport divisions and let us truly large fellas not let all of our training and hard work have to take a backseat in the standings to your sandbagger ways.
I can't tell you how many times I was racing (mountain bikes) and I'm beating the other big big clydes and come rolling into the finish only to find out I'm fifth in my division and the cat that finished fourth was in about ten minutes before me...I'm NOT being a sore loser, what I'm being is an experienced racer that recognizes when the first second third and even fourth place finishers are upwards of fifteen/twenty minutes in before the rest of the field, those are individuals racing in the wrong class and the divisions have been set too lax to allow for serious competition.
There must be a way to start a grassroots push to make the lowest Clyde weight 250lb. and a recognition of division dedicated to the REALLY big racers. I dunno, this rant comes after looking at the comical results of last years Clydesdale National Championships...a bunch of really tall, a bit over two hundred pounders calling themselves Clydes...

Okay "skinny clydes" you can begin your attack now...;)

I am angry because super-models do not like my beer gut! Its not fair that skinny guys get laid more! Lets change the rules so I get exactly as much attention as Brad Pitt!

You should stop whining and train harder if you want to win.

Oh, and also, I have asthma-- should there be a clyde class for asthmatics only? Its not fair that all these fat guys with healthy lungs are racing against me!

Edit: I don't race at all-- I just hate self-pity...

one of the race series her has a 55+ category and a 57+ category. As for the clydes I would be happy if they had a couple of age groups in the clyde category, a 45+ clyde racing a 20+ clyde is what isn't fair. I can hold my own against a 45+ clyde, but I get stompped on by the 20+ clyde.

It also depends on the length of the event. Long distance where pacing and strategy is the key, we older Clydes have an advantage over the younger ones in self discipline and experience. Younger = better sprinter and faster recovery, older = longer endurance and better self discipline. Most Ultramarathon riders are in the 35-50 age group, for example.

The appropriate solution would seem to be to do away with the Clydesdale category completely as the number assigns tall fit people, short muscular people, overweight people, young people, old people, etc. all into the same group. At 6’7” 235 I fit into this group but wouldn’t want to compete in it if I ever decided to do another triathlon or marathon, I would prefer to just compete in my own age category as that is where my friends that I ride/run/swim with would be. At least when you are competing within your age category you have something in common with the other people in your class.

It strikes me as odd that the category ever came to exist. I was a competitive swimmer for 16 years and we had no such category, cycling didn't have the category at the time and running didn't have the category at the time either. Why did the category come into existence when the three disciplines were combined into a single event?

We could use bodyfat % instead of weight. 200 pounds on somebody 6'10" is not overweight.

I know guys who are over 6 feet tall and weigh less than 180. These guys are winning. The fact is, anyone over 200 lbs is carrying a lot more extra weight than the average "winning" cyclist, which is why there is a Clydesdale category. Weight affects speed, especially where climbing is concerned. Weight matters, no matter how it is distributed. Now, if you want to be good at your class, like I do, then start cycling more and eating well.

If race promoters are to put time and money into a Clydesdale category and awards, then it is only fair that the people who win that category are the people who work the hardest, just like in any other category. It's a race. If you don't like your results, then work harder. Replace some of that fat with muscle.

I don't see a weight diffference between a 235lb trim-guy and a 235lb overweight guy. They both have to lug that weight through the water and along the road. That weight is an obvious disadvantage in this sport, hence the category. There has to be some sort of cut-off, and the 200lb mark seems about right. Would you prefer to do a full fitness and medical test before each race so you could compete against people exactly like you?

Just think how good you'll feel once you beat the "skinny" guy. Or maybe you want to BE the skinny guy?

Henry Rollins said this when talking about weights: "Friends may come and go, but 200 pounds is always 200 pounds."
It's true for the people in endurance racing, too. Whether you're 6'3" and 200 pounds of bodybuilder ripped lean muscle, or 5'10" and 200 pounds of "about average" looking physique, you still have to move that same weight over the same distance.
Complaining that someone trained harder and has a gigantic hardbody physique in the Clyde category is not different than someone who's 20% bodyfat but under the 200 pound cutoff complaining that he's got to race in an age group against guys who are 4% bodyfat.
There's similar complaints across all competitions. In WABDL (bench and deadlift) competition, I heard guys complain that the weight classes were unfair because taller people with longer arms have to move the same weight over a longer distance (with a lower muscle mass to height ratio) than short barrel-chested guys.
If it's competitive, someone's going to find a reason to complain.

(I've worked the math, and even if I went down to 0% bodyfat I'd be 225 pounds. Just because I spent a lot of time lifting weights doesn't mean that all that muscle would help my endurance ability, though. Raw power over short distance isn't going to win any tris without the endurance training to back it up. And there are not a whole lot of big guys with that type of build who have the endurance to be competitive even in the Clyde division, much less in their age group.)

Guys that could be competitive in their perspective sport class or age group but instead opt for the pursuit of easier competition by eeking their way into the Clyde division for a better final standing. Even if they just changed the min. weight to 250lb. it would force a lot of those clowns into the groups they should be. But no I agree that a qualifying weight doesn't automatically make you a sandbagger...and i DEFINITELY apologize if I offended anyone (not my intent)...I really shouldn't have even begun to name numbers at all...because I don't mean to suggest that any clyde is more clyde than another...Sandbaggers know EXACTLY who they are and they are COMPLETELY aware that they are sandbagging when doing so. When racing was my life, I never once raced below my division, not a single time ever...you don't get better that way, you get better by pushing yourself our of your comfort zone.

You're a whiner! At least that's what I first thought. I don't race bicycles but I do drive Autocross and used to shoot Sporting Clays fairly seriously. I haven't had any problems in autocross but Sporting Clays could be a mess. If you shot enough tournaments and scored high enough you would be forced to move up in class. People would intentionally shoot poorly the entire season just so they could go into Nationals in a lower class and hopefully be able to outshoot the people who were in that class legitimately. By the time I quit completing it was turning into a serious problem. I never could understand the mentality. I always wanted to move up. I would rather finish 10th as a B class shooter than 1st as a C. To me there was more pride in being allowed to compete in a higher class than being able to win in a lower class.

I think this is much the problem here. You have a group (probably small) of riders who technically fit into the category of Clydesdale. They are good enough and strong enough to be competitive in a faster category but POSSIBLY not winners. Instead of taking pride in the fact that they can compete with a faster group they would rather use a technicality that enables them to ride in a slower class and probably win. It's a real problem and it sucks for those people who really belong in the class and are doing everything they can to just be competitive.

So, what's the solution? I don't know. To be honest I don't know how riders are classified. I would think there should be some sort of points system, like in sporting clays, and if you had X number of points you would have to compete at a higher level. I would even take age out of it. If 2 people can compete at the same level their weight and/or age should have nothing to do with how they are classified. It doesn't sound as though bicycling is set up that way. Any method will have it's problems and its share of people who obey the letter but beat the crap out of the spirit of the law. For right now, just do everything you can to beat the morons. That will be the worst punishment anyone could give them.

Joe

My wife suggested that for me to be competitive I should try to talk them into adding tug-of-war at the end of sprint triathlons. I love that idea!

My wife suggested that for me to be competitive I should try to talk them into adding tug-of-war at the end of sprint triathlons. I love that idea!

Or maybe pie-eating, no? But then, given the size of the Japanese guy who dominated the Nathan's competitions for the years prior to 2007, maybe not...