Lukas Verzbicas wins ITU World Duathlon title and rips the running portion

6:28 for 2.5k is the same pace Ritz had last month when he broke Kennedy's AR. This kid ran this pace after running 5K in 14:45 and biking 20k.

Either these distances are wrong or he breaks Ritz's AR in some high school duel meet this spring.

The guy who finished in 2nd place was only 1 second behind Lukas in the 5K.

I think he was younger too.

OK, the course is probably short. But hey he won the world championships for Juniors and he is damn good and mostlikely will break high school records in his junior year which would be equivalent to a senior for his age. I undersatnad he is not a natural-born American. Appreciate the beauty of the sport and stop being so negative.

the straight dope brah wrote:

I don't think anyone "hates" this kid. I think most of us would rather see a homegrown U.S. runner do well instead of a foreigner whose age can't be verified.

He's a foreigner, but not from a country with birth documentation ranging from not available to poor.

Yeah, not exactly from Ethiopia or Kenya. There's no question about his actual age.

mnsgbsgf wrote:

He's a foreigner, but not from a country with birth documentation ranging from not available to poor.

He is also qualified to President.

The guy who finished in 2nd place was 10 sec behind Lukas; he is recent triathlon world champion and he is 19. Lukas is 16, he will turn 17 in January 2010.

Is he an American citizen? If so he isn't a "foreigner". Quit being so xenophobic.

Need citation wrote:

Just Tri and Stop Me wrote:

Triathlon and probably Duathlon distances can be +-10% so it is 4500-5500 and 2250-2750. I think the 5k is about right but the 2.5k probably a bit short since nearly the whole field was a lot faster on the second run.

This is an oft-cited reason for fast triathlon times, yet no one seems to be able to prove it. Please cite the rule from the course measurement rule book that proves this.

I know a person who has been deeply involved with USAT and who has put on races and served as some sort of regional director/coordinator/board for USAT and he acknowledges that triathlon distances are not as accurate as USATF certified courses. The USAT rule book says NOTHING about certifying distances.

To some extent, it does not matter in that all the athletes are racing the same course.

Too many of you are concerned about times and forget that the object at that level is to WIN.

It's the accent. Cockney wanka.

just asking wrote:

Why do so many people hate this kid?

Is it because he is good and those that flame him are not?

PROOF - OPEN YOUR EYES READ HERE (this only took a couple of minutes of searching maybe learn to use google) ...

http://www.triathlon.org/docs/competition-rules-20080601-vf.pdf

on page 41 (for triathlons and DUATHLONS):

"Demanding and technical courses should always be preferred. A 5% error margin will be accepted for the cycle and run course provided the margin has been approved by the Technical Delegate"

Does this mean 5% error for total distance of duathlon? because if it did the bike leg could be made correct or long and then make the run leg say 8-10% short and total duathlon distance still within 5% error. Even if its 5% less per individual leg that is just RIDICULOUSLY INACCURATE. And the demanding and technical courses part is crap the triathlon world champs on the gold coast were pancake flat ...

IAAF rules for road races (to access click competitions>technical area>IAAF competition rules 2009):

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/95/59/20090303014358_httppostedfile_CompetitionRules2009_printed_8986.pdf

on page 214:

"The length of the course shall not be less than the official distance for the event. In competitions under Rules 1.1(a), (b), (c) and (f), the uncertainty in the measurement shall not exceed 0.1% (i.e. 42m for the Marathon) and the length of the course should have been certified in advance by an IAAF approved course measurer."

"In events on roads the course shall be measured

along the shortest possible route that an athlete could follow within the section of the road permitted for use in the race."

For world record purposes page 224:

"The overall decrease in elevation between the start and finish shall not exceed 1:1000, i.e. 1m per km."

Many other rules - extremely strict for track (and timing regulations) such as:

"The lateral inclination of tracks should not exceed 1:100 and the overall inclination in the running direction shall not exceed 1:1000 downwards ...

The length of a standard running track shall be 400m ...

The measurement shall be taken 30cm outward from the kerb or, where no kerb exists, 20cm from the line marking the inside of the

track"

LONG SUMMARY:

Tris and duathlons can be 5% short, and the run leg or any other leg could possibly be even shorter. Also start/finish of run leg can often be at different points allowing for net elevation loss, therefore absolute times in these races do not have any meaning but times relative to fellow competitors do. Also questions raised by others such as placement of timing mats, actual course on race day (i notice many of these races have out and back sections and the turnaround on these could be placed in the wrong spot on race day) etc ...

Running courses much more accurate (+/- 0.1%) and no net elevation loss for record purposes. This is probably why in running we can compare current runners to the past but in tri this is not really possible. I wouldn't mind seeing science of sport doing a post on this topic.

SHORT SUMMARY: triathlon sucks

oh yeah this was in response to:

road rashed - "doubt it is a short course for the world championship. i am sure they have to be verified multiple ways"

and

Just Tri and Stop Me wrote:

"Triathlon and probably Duathlon distances can be +-10% so it is 4500-5500 and 2250-2750. I think the 5k is about right but the 2.5k probably a bit short since nearly the whole field was a lot faster on the second run"

and

Need citation wrote:

"This is an oft-cited reason for fast triathlon times, yet no one seems to be able to prove it. Please cite the rule from the course measurement rule book that proves this"

probably trolling but i took the bait

..."short message, triathlons suck", why? Because you swim like a rock and suck on a bicycle???

Get over it, and since tri's are so easy, why don't you try to run after you cycle?

Ironman winner Craig Alexander runs a 2:45 marathon AFTER swimming 2.4 miles in 51min. and cycling 112miles averaging over 24mph, let's see you cycle over 20mph for just 10miles~betch you can't...

Having done many triathlons over the years, I can assure you that the courses are rarely accurate. Just because a course is a national event, does not mean it has a higher likelihood of being accurate. I have raced bike courses over 1 mile short for a 40k, yet still advertised as a "40k". Running a 2.5k in 6:28 after an almost all out 5k run and hard bike is impossible for ANYONE, not just a triathlete. ANYONE. I wear a garmin these days because courses are never as advertised.

Yeh a 2:45 thirty-X km run not a marathon. Do you want a medal for that?

I just jumped on the bike and did 10 miles (+/- 1%, 0m altitude change) at 20mph. Those were full miles by the way (not triathlon miles, 1 triathlon mile = 1500m). Theres probably thousands, maybe even tens or hundreds of thousands of people that could if they could be bothered...

Oh and normally quotation marks are used when you quote directly - i didn't write "short message, triathlons suck" it was "SHORT SUMMARY: triathlon sucks"

And yes i do swim like a rock as i'm not a fat ******* triathlete. Bikes I don't really care so much for the depth in the sport is limited by peoples access to bikes. Just about anyone could ride 16 k's at 36 kph if they had a good enough bike.

I don't actually have anything against the concept of triathlons, but I do believe that times in triathlon are worthless unless they are used to compare times on the same course (MUCH THE SAME WAY AS CROSS COUNTRY). I bet if triathlons were held with the swim leg in a swimming pool, the bike leg in a velodrome and the run on track we wouldn't see all these bull**** times of 28:XX or 29 low for the 10K or 2:4X marathons.

Keep on tRoLlInG

He sounds for real. I hope he is! However, his comment last year when he lost that 2 mile to who...Dunbar or somebody?, was that he was going to run a 8:40 that day but something was not right or something like that. My concern was, he ran an 8:56 I think. My question is where in the heck is his coach or how does he get 8:40. Let me think, 8;56 is a long way from 8:52, 8:52 is a long way from 8:47, 8:47 is a long long way from 8:43 and a light year from 8:40. A coach or a HS knowledgeable person should know this. UNLESS I am dead wrong and he is some kind of super freak who could drop in one race to a...well I can't say it. I hope he is though!

Did you actually just ride your bike to prove something to a guy on a message board?

How is this kid's name pronounced? Seeing as he will be talked about for quite a while, this is going to be necessary to know.

Thanks for the rule citation. I had looked on the USAT site and did not find it.

Just for clarification, that 5% could just as easily be 5% long as best I can tell. (Not that I think it happens often, but consider it if you see a "slow" time).

In the end I am not sure it really matters to them. Times in triathlon are relatively meaningless. The courses vary so much (unlike the seeming overwhelming desire to make every marathon as flat as possible) that it becomes like trying to compare XC times from course to course.

All the competitors are racing the same course, the same day and maybe they care more about WINNING than times (to me a big issue with running is the focus on times and not the focus on WINNING).