Just want to clarify a few things about Half Full & Rev3

Just want to clarify a few things about all the controversy that has been going on about the Half Full:

First, I think it’s great that the Half Full is donating 100% of profits to the Ulman Cancer Fund. It’s a great cause and very honorable. I think it’s also great that Rev3 had put a substantial amount of money (roughly $100K), and their own time and resources toward this race without expecting profits in return.

But, I completely disagree with Half Full/UCF’s decision to unsaction this event and disregard USADA by letting Lance race. I’m not buying the “ends justify the means” argument. There are more positive ways to raise money that don’t hurt the sport of triathlon and offend athletes by ignoring a life ban handed down by a governing body. Disrespecting one cause for the sake of another is wrong. I’m not anti-cancer survivor or anti-charity.  My father, who I lost last year, had cancer. I’ve also lost my grandfather to cancer. As minor as it may be, I’ve had skin cancer removed earlier this year. My position on this is purely about the integrity of sport.

Finally, there is a reason I chose Rev3 not only as a race series but as a major sponsor. I believe in what they do, not only in triathlon but in charity and fundraising. I think Charlie Patten has gone out of his way to accomodate pros in the last couple of years and he’s done more for triathlon than any other race director. Although we disagree on how to handle this issue, I support what Charlie and Rev3 have done for the sport and I will continue to race his races in the future.

12 replies
  1. Brandt Burns
    Brandt Burns says:

    Interesting post RC. Seems to me you created quiet a stink with a major sponsor and there’s some serious damage control in play.

    You are one of the brightest and best in our sport, your 100% correct on your postion with LA. It’s BS and your right for calling it.

    You were 100% wrong going after Lovato on Twitter. ML is the pure definition of professional in triathlon and that should have been taken off line.

    My $0.02.

    BB

    Reply
  2. Ben
    Ben says:

    I support you 100% on this, RC. I wish I knew if Charlie was given input on if Lance should be allowed to race. He’s not officially race director, so he may have been informed but not a decision maker.

    Reply
  3. rhaerhae
    rhaerhae says:

    This was well written and as a former triathlete and current professional cyclist I agree with you fully.

    When an athlete is under suspension for drug use , it is up to us as the sporting community to uphold those sanctions.

    One of the reasons athletes dope is that the consequences do not outweigh the gains. With stronger punishments/deterrents and a lack of acceptance from the sporting world – athletes will be less likely to accept doping in sport and to do it themselves. This is the only way we can clean up cycling, triathlon and other sports.

    We should not be changing the rules for sanctioned dopers, regardless of how much publicity or money it can make a race; even if that money is for a good cause. It isn’t the right thing to do.

    I am pretty sure Rev3 isnt in support of cheating or doping in sport, and therefore they shouldn’t allow Lance to race. It is disrespectful to the professional and age group athletes that race clean.

    I hope more people are vocal about it, since that is the only way Rev 3 could change their position. i wrote a letter expressing how much i dislike the decision to let him race. http://rev3tri.com/contact/

    Although i suspect that the only real thing to make them reconsider would be if USAT stated they would never sanction one of their events again….

    Reply
  4. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    What you and all others are forgetting is this is not about doping, it is about USADA not having to act in accordance with the law of due process. In criminal or federal court in the US, you must show evidence before convicting someone. If you throw them into jail ahead of trial, (the equivalent of Lance’s ban in simple cycling terms) there must be overwhelming evidence of their crime, which also must be stated and shown to judge and prosecution and they also must be a threat to society. Lance was neither and USADA acts in their system that is utterly wrong. They do not need to show this evidence before ending someone’s season and then force them into arbitration to prove their innocence or be guilty. That is called McCarthyism and if you believe in that system mate, you need to go back to OZ and get out of my hometown of Boulder. You, and all others are sadly mistaken and are grossly out of line and wrong. Lance is doing exactly what you, or anyone else would had they been charged and banned without evidence and forced into proving their innocence from a stand point of guilt. This USADA governing body also had other governing bodies disagreeing with their jurisdiction over this case and Judge Sparks slammed them for not showing evidence and borderline lack of due process saying their case stunk of bad fish. That speaks volumes mate. I sincerely hope this never happens to you.

    Reply
    • Brandt Burns
      Brandt Burns says:

      Wow, although I was critical of some parts as the first responder, I do not believe Richie’s position is to eliminate due process.

      I believe his position, and this is only my $0.02, is once Lance discontinued his defense, he pleaded nolo contendere, thus guilty. USADA did not circumvent his due process protections, you could argue, although unsuccessfully, the WTC violated his rights. Futile, as he previously waved his rights by signing and particpating in WTC events as a professional triathlete. Which CLEARLY state an investigation results in the absence of competition eligibility. USADA simply charged him, and post no contest, again the same effect as guilty, he is now ineligible to participate in USAT events for life.

      This is really no different than declining a breathalyzer, no blow….DUI.

      As for your call to get back to OZ and out of Boulder……seriously?

      And note, inflammatory posts as Anonymous speak volumes…..

      Reply
  5. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Just a quick comment about the skin cancer being “minor.” My close friend died last year from skin cancer because he thought it was “minor” too. As triathletes we are in the great outdoors more than most and we need to be very vigilant to all aspects of our health, not just our HR, BMI and VO max.

    Reply
    • Richie Cunningham
      Richie Cunningham says:

      Thanks for the note and clarification. I didn’t mean to imply that skin cancer in general was minor. It can definitely be life-threatening, especially something like melanoma. I’m really sorry to hear about your friend. I’ve been getting checked yearly for the last 10 years and was lucky to catch it early – it was basal cell, which although serious, I’m told is less threatening than melanoma as long as I stay on top of it. Main point though – everyone should take skin cancer seriously. And I do.

      Reply
  6. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Richie,
    I find your comments to be very articulate and well-reasoned. I’m particularly glad that you have defended the integrity of the sport, which is so often overshadowed by the chatter and blind faith of the pro-LA hero-worshippers. Lance had every opportunity to see the evidence but chose not to. It was move, calculated as it was, to avoid the public airing of the details. Reportedly, there are more than 10 eye witnesses who have come forward with testimony that more than meets the threshold of evidence. The American prisons — even death rows — are full of inmates who have been locked away because of a single eye witness. Please disregard the hatred of ugly American from Boulder. You can stay in our country as long as you want. We need outstanding folks like you. Plus, you are one of the most consistent pro triathletes out there. Thanks.

    Reply
  7. Brian Patton
    Brian Patton says:

    Get bent, you stupid Aussie. This is our sport, you’re just borrowing it. Due process requires evidence and the right to cross-examine one’s accusers, not arbitrary arbitration by hand-picked judges. This isn’t Europe or Soviet Russia, it’s America. Don’t like our customs and traditions, then go back home, “mate.” You really think a pathogical turd like Landis would last five seconds on the stand before imploding during cross? Guess what, I think you’re a doper. No one who looks like such a ginger non-athlete could possibly be that fast. Now it’s on you to prove me wrong, right? What, you disagree? Banned!

    Reply
  8. Brian Patton
    Brian Patton says:

    Get bent, you stupid Aussie. This is our sport, you’re just borrowing it. Due process requires evidence and the right to cross-examine one’s accusers, not arbitrary arbitration by hand-picked judges. This isn’t Europe or Soviet Russia, it’s America. Don’t like our customs and traditions, then go back home, “mate.” You really think a pathogical turd like Landis would last five seconds on the stand before imploding during cross? Guess what, I think you’re a doper. No one who looks like such a ginger non-athlete could possibly be that fast. Now it’s on you to prove me wrong, right? What, you disagree? Banned!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *