One of the changes in the 2015 KPR rules address the issue of validation. (You can ready more about the 2015 KPR and receive updates about the qualifying situation by subscribing to the 2015 KPR Observer.) In one of my earlier posts, I have written about my thoughts on validation.

Before going into a detailed discussion of validation let me state that I’m not judging the athlete’s choices nor do I want to imply that some choices are likely in the future. I merely use what has happened in the past or what might happen in the future in order to give examples for specific situations. 

Increased Requirements for Returning Champions

In short validation defines a minimum requirement of finishing at least one Ironman race outside of Kona in order to be eligible for a Kona slot. Most often, the term „validation” used as a requirement for past champions to get a non-points slot: They get an automatic entry (called „five year exemption“ in the KPR rules) for five years after winner Kona. In the 2014 season, there have been two incidents when deciding champions decided to race an Ironman without going for the win:

• Mirinda Carfre validated at IM Florida (three weeks after Kona) by finishing 23rd in 9:48, including a 3:34 run.
• After missing IM Texas because of an injury, Pete Jacobs validated at IM Switzerland (a week after Challenge Roth) by finishing 15th in 11:42, including a 5:37 bike and a 4:56 marathon. (Pete wrote about his reasons in an open letter to Ironman CEO.)

Ironman CEO Andrew Messick expressed his frustration in the way that some champions have fulfilled their validation in an interview with Slowtwitch:

Last weekend one of our former world champions validated for Kona ..  that athlete went 11:42 with a 51 minute swim, 5 hour and 37 minute bike and a 4:56 run. [Messick was referencing 2012 Ironman World Champion Pete Jacobs of Australia who was validating his 2014 Kona entry at Ironman Switzerland in Zurich] There was never any doubt that this was simply punching a ticket.

Not surprisingly, the requirements for validation have been increased in the 2015 KPR rules:

Former Pro Athlete Ironman® World Champions .. will be required to validate their entry by racing competitively (as determined by IRONMAN in IRONMAN’s sole discretion) and finishing at least one (1) Ironman®-Branded Kona-Qualifying Race (excluding the 2014 Ironman World Championship) during the 2015 Qualifying Year.

Discussion

The requirements in the KPR rules are not very specific – so I had a look into the Merriam-Webster dictionary for a definition of „competitive“:

• having a strong desire to win or be the best at something
• trying to win a contest or be more successful than others

Going by this definition, validation would require that a returning champion races in order to win (or at minimum to place well). Obviously this is what Ironman would like to see, but clearly not what Rinnie and Pete did. Even if Pete did the best he could do at his specific situation in Switzerland, I can’t see this fit the above definition of „competitive“.

I think the language is only helpful in showing „undesired“ behavior – “not racing competitively“ which should be easy to determine. However, it it not helpful in giving an athlete of what is required of him or her to validate. In the example of Pete who did not have a choice other than to race a week after Roth, what would he have had to do in order to be considered „racing competitively“? And would Rinnie’s performance in Florida have been judged to be competitive? Where is the cutoff? One could try to come up with better criteria than what we have now – maybe be within x% of the winners time, or score at least k number of KPR points. However, Ironman doesn’t seem to plan to give a clearer guidance on what they determine to be competitive.

What about the Points Slots?

There is another issue that has to be discussed: The requirement of „racing competitively“ only applies to returning champions. This leads to two questions: If a returning champion’s performance has not been deemed „competitive“ (and therefore not eligible for an automatic qualifier), is it then still possible to be considered for a points slot? (I can’t see anything in the KPR rules that would prohibit it.) This could theoretically happen if Sebastian Kienle comes into a situation similar to Pete: His 8000 points from winning Kona will be enough to be above the points cutoff. If he „finishes without racing competitively“, he might be denied an automatic qualifier as a returning champion, but nothing would keep him from claiming a points slot. I’m not sure if this makes sense.

In addition, this is effectively putting a higher requirement on returning champions (say Leanda Cave who finished 18th and is currently ranked with not enough points for a slot) than an athlete who has placed well in the last Kona race (say Daniela Ryf who finished 2nd and is currently leading the rankings). Leanda has to „race competitively“ for her automatic qualifier, while Daniela could „just finish“. (Again, I’m not implying that this is likely or that she even thinks about this.)

I expect that this „disparity“ will be addressed in the next KPR rules change: The increased number of candidates that could get a Kona slot without racing competitively is much larger (basically, most of the Top10 men and women should already be safe from a points perspective), so I’m sure there will be a few more cases this season. (We have already seen a potential case last year when Tim O’Donnell used a 33rd place finish in Florida as his „validation“ IM.)

My Personal Opinion

My base position on validation is unchanged since I wrote my thought on it in May: 

I think it is obvious that no-one thinks that a recent Kona winner is not „worthy“ of starting in the Kona Pro field. But if Kona winners could just rock up to Kona, they might have an unfair advantage: By not having to race any IMs, they could be better rested than all the other participants that have to struggle for points to make it to Kona. Therefore, I am (a bit reluctantly) agreeing with the concept of validation.

However, I think that the rules changes made (and those that I expect to follow) are just making things more and more complicated and subjective. Therefore, my suggestion would be to accept any Ironman-distance race as validation. (Pete and Rinnie wouldn’t have had to race an Ironman if their Challenge Roth finish would have counted as validation.) However, I can’t see that Ironman would see this as a viable solution so I think that this will unfortunately continue to be a contentious issue.

Among the changes to the KPR for 2015 (official text on ironman.com website) is the reduction of number of Ironman races that will count as part of an athlete’s total score for the KPR. In the past (up until 2014), it was possible to use up to five full distance Ironman races for the total score. Starting with the KPR qualifying for Kona 2015, only up to three IMs can be part of the total score. (There can still be up to five scores total, but only up to three can be from IMs, similar to the up to three 70.3 results that can be part of the total.) Here’s a look at the changes in the rankings that this will probably bring. Because the women have fewer slots available, they usually race more often than the men, so I’ll have separate sections for each gender.

Men

Here are the men who qualified for Kona that had more than three IMs in their total KPR score. I have added their total number of Ironman finishes and the number of points they would loose in parentheses.

• 5 IMs: 2 athletes
  Matt Russell (8-1080), Harry Wiltshire (6-1105)
• 4 IMs: 5 athletes
  Daniel Halksworth (4-340), David Plese (4-340), Marek Jaskolka (4-405), Christian Brader (4-305), Justin Daerr (4-230)

Under the new rules, these athletes would have had a lower score. If they wanted to make sure to qualify for Kona, they would have had to race 70.3s for some extra points. 

Among the qualified athletes, Axel Zeebroek raced four IMs this season, but his total score only uses three of these, so his total wouldn’t change under the new rule.

In addition there are athletes that finished more than three IMs but didn’t qualify. As the rule change will only affect those that actually might be interested in a Kona slot, I’m only listing those that scored more than 1.000 points:

• 8 IMs: Petr Vabrousek (3.265)
• 5 IMs: Jonathon Woods (1.385)
• 4 IMs: Kyrill Kotshegarev (3.220), Joshua Rix (1.400), Balazs Csoke (2.090), Thomas Darby (1.890)

Women

Here are the women who qualified for Kona that had more than three IMs in their total KPR score. I have added their total number of Ironman finishes and the number of points they would loose in parentheses.

• 5 IMs: 2 athletes
  Lisa Roberts (5-1125), Jackie Arendt (5-610)
• 4 IMs: 9 athletes
  Elizabeth Lyles (4-960), Amber Ferreira (4-405), Melanie Burke (5-720), Asa Lundstroem (4-720), Kristin Moeller (4-960), Sophie Goos (4-565), Bree Wee (4-720), Jessie Donavan (4-540), Katja Konschak (5-540)

Under the new rules, these athletes would have had a lower score. If they wanted to make sure to qualify for Kona, they would have had to race 70.3s for some extra points. 

Among the qualified athletes, Beth Shutt raced four IMs this season, but her total score only uses three of these, so his total wouldn’t change under the new rule.

In addition there are athletes that finished more than three IMs but didn’t qualify. As the rule change will only affect those that actually might be interested in a Kona slot, I’m only listing those that scored more than 2.000 points:

• 5 IMs: Mareen Hufe (5.165)
• 4 IMs: Ashley Clifford (3.385), Erika Csomor (4.780)

Overall Assessment

Obviously, the impact of the rule change is different for the men and women. 

The impact on the men’s cutoff will be relatively small (only 7 out of 50 qualifying athletes had four or more IMs in their total score). I think that racing under the new rules would have driven them to do more 70.3s, and the changes to their total score would have been in the order of 100 points.

For the women, there is a larger number of athletes that are impacted (11 women out of 35 qualifiers have raced four IMs or more), and the impact on their scores would also have been higher. All of them would have lost 400 points or more, and I’m not sure that they would have been able to fully compensate by racing additional 70.3s. 

To sum up, I think that the men’s cutoff will be lowered by about 100 points and by 400 points for the women by only allowing up to three IM scores.

Of course, there are other changes impacting the cutoff projections. If you want to see my overall projections for the 2015 cutoff and which athletes already have a safe slot, you should subscribe to the 2015 KPR Observer, consisting of an Initial Information Package and ongoing email updates as the season progresses.