Another Triathlon Swim Bites the Dust

At Ironman 70.3 Dallas–Little Elm this past weekend, the swim did not unfold as planned.

Strong winds sweeping across the lake caused organizers to cancel the swim entirely for the age-group field, while the professional race proceeded with a shortened 350m swim. According to weather reports, winds were between 25–35mph, with gusts exceeding 50mph.

In endurance sport – particularly one involving open water – safety inevitably comes first. Still, the decision reignited a conversation that surfaces regularly in triathlon whenever the swim is altered or cancelled.

Could there be alternative solutions that preserve the swim when conditions are challenging, but still manageable for elite athletes?

Several professional athletes raised precisely that question after the race.

Professionals Call for Creative Solutions

Several voices in the professional field suggested that the sport could explore more flexible approaches when conditions make a full swim difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

One idea raised by athletes was adjusting the course design rather than removing the swim entirely.

As professional triathlete Mark Dubrick put it: “Make the swim matter again! …If you can’t do a [one] loop course do a two, three loop course. (Keeps us closer to shore and actually better for spectating.)”

Dubrick also noted that, in his view, the bike course may have posed greater danger given the extreme winds. Race winner Lionel Sanders echoed that sentiment after the race, saying the conditions were so strong he nearly crashed on the bike at one point.

Dubrick was far from the only athlete to raise the issue. Several professionals including Greg Harper, Ben Kanute, and Joe Skipper shared similar thoughts on social media, suggesting that alternative formats such as multi-loop swim courses could allow the swim to remain part of the race when conditions are marginal but manageable.

The idea of athlete representation was also raised. Some athletes suggested that professionals could be involved in swim-related decisions through an on-site representative or through broader consultation – similar to what occurred recently when Ironman revisited the drafting zone and ultimately extended it to 20m for the professional field.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Gregory Harper (@gharpzorz)

For many professionals, the underlying issue is competitive integrity. The swim plays a fundamental role in shaping race dynamics, and when it disappears – or shrinks dramatically – the balance of the race changes.

As Harper put it: “We want full swims. Every professional with integrity should want full swims.”

The Case for Caution

While creative solutions are compelling to consider, safety considerations remain central.

A comment from Pro Tri News, who were present at the race, suggested the conditions at Dallas–Little Elm were far more severe than they appeared in photos or video.

As they explained: “Safety comes first…videos don’t do it justice…it would have been pretty dangerous for age groupers….the lake is quite large and the current was ripping today.”

“The team on the ground exhausted every option before resorting to the Duathlon,” they added.

It underscores how the decision was not made lightly. Race organizers must weigh a complex set of factors when making swim calls: wind, current, safety coverage, athlete ability levels, and the logistical realities of managing thousands of competitors in open water.

When conditions deteriorate, those considerations can quickly shift the calculus toward caution.

Different Responses for Pros Versus Age-Groupers

A key question raised in Dallas is whether the professional and age-group races should sometimes be treated differently.

As Sanders noted after the race: “The swim was cancelled for the age-groupers, but the pros still got about a 350m swim, which was actually a small win for us. I’ve done nearly 90 pro races and when the swim gets cancelled it’s usually for everyone.”

Harper made a similar point, acknowledging that allowing the professional field to swim – even briefly – was a step forward. “Was this a good step forward because the pros at least got to swim a little bit? [The] age group swim was cancelled… Definitely.”

The discussion echoes a recent precedent in the sport. When Ironman extended the drafting zone to 20m for professional races while keeping the 12m rule for age-group athletes, the reasoning reflected two realities: the competitive realities of professional racing and the practical constraints of managing much larger age-group fields.

Those same considerations may apply to swim decisions.

For professionals racing for prize money, rankings, and sponsorships, the swim represents an important competitive component – one that rewards well-rounded triathletes and can shape the entire race dynamic. At the same time, the relatively small size of professional fields makes creative solutions, such as multi-loop courses closer to shore or modified swim formats, more feasible to implement.

For age-group races involving thousands of athletes, those same solutions may be far more difficult to manage.

A Conversation That Isn’t Going Away

Dallas–Little Elm may not have provided a definitive answer, but it did highlight a conversation that continues to evolve within the sport.

Balancing athlete safety with preserving the competitive integrity of the swim is not a simple equation, and it will be interesting to see how this discussion evolves.