It's been a rough week for the UCI

[[email protected]]

http://cyclocosm.com/2006/03/rage-against-uci-machine-rant.html

 

[xzzy]

along the line of Tyler and it takes two wrongs to actually be wrong:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-cylingsuspensions&prov=ap&type=lgns
UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said Tuesday that while his organization cannot
stop suspended cyclists from competing in unsanctioned races, it will take
action against licensed professionals racing alongside banned riders.
"We told U.S. cycling that in the future any rider or team participating
in a race -- even a nonsanctioned race like in Boulder -- with a banned
rider like Tyler Hamilton, could be suspended for one month," Carpani told
The Associated Press.
"If Tyler Hamilton wants to take part in this race, he can, and we can't
stop him. But all other riders and all other teams then cannot participate
in that race. If they do, they can be suspended."

I think all this means: The UCI says it's okay to be wrong and break the
rules, just do not be wrong ( for the same thing ) more than once. Further,
I would take the last sentence of the quote: "If they do, they can be
suspended" to be weasle wording, namely the word "can" obfuscates what are
the parameters of being suspended. Also, the UCI needs to get it's act
together.

John Bickmore

 

[amit]

xzzy wrote:

> "If Tyler Hamilton wants to take part in this race, he can, and we can't
> stop him. But all other riders and all other teams then cannot participate
> in that race. If they do, they can be suspended."
>
> I think all this means: The UCI says it's okay to be wrong and break the
> rules, just do not be wrong ( for the same thing ) more than once. Further,
> I would take the last sentence of the quote: "If they do, they can be
> suspended" to be weasle wording, namely the word "can" obfuscates what are
> the parameters of being suspended. Also, the UCI needs to get it's act
> together.

This means what it means. It can get you suspended. Just like using bad
language at a race can get you disqualified, but it's not guaranteed
too.

What blows my mind about this whole "scandal" is how different the
perception is of the rules in the US, than in maybe anywhere else in
the world. It's well known among riders here that riding in
unsanctioned races can get you disqualified. The whole sanctioning
system has a purpose behind it.

Certainly it's a way to pressure organizers to properly sanction their
event, but it also ensures to the riders that the event is meeting
certain standards with respect to safety and organization.

That's not to suggest that only the UCI and it's affiliated bodies are
capable of this, but as a customer you don't dine at restaurants, go to
doctors or hire contractors that don't have the right license, right ?

How can a gov. body allow it's riders to support an event if it cannot
ensure the riders are not being exposed to an improperly run race when
they have no input on the guidelines which the event is run according
to ?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"amit" <[email protected]> wrote:

> xzzy wrote:
>
> > "If Tyler Hamilton wants to take part in this race, he can, and we can't
> > stop him. But all other riders and all other teams then cannot participate
> > in that race. If they do, they can be suspended."
> >
> > I think all this means: The UCI says it's okay to be wrong and break the
> > rules, just do not be wrong ( for the same thing ) more than once. Further,
> > I would take the last sentence of the quote: "If they do, they can be
> > suspended" to be weasle wording, namely the word "can" obfuscates what are
> > the parameters of being suspended. Also, the UCI needs to get it's act
> > together.
>
> This means what it means. It can get you suspended. Just like using bad
> language at a race can get you disqualified, but it's not guaranteed
> too.
>
> What blows my mind about this whole "scandal" is how different the
> perception is of the rules in the US, than in maybe anywhere else in
> the world. It's well known among riders here that riding in
> unsanctioned races can get you disqualified. The whole sanctioning
> system has a purpose behind it.
>
> Certainly it's a way to pressure organizers to properly sanction their
> event, but it also ensures to the riders that the event is meeting
> certain standards with respect to safety and organization.
>
> That's not to suggest that only the UCI and it's affiliated bodies are
> capable of this, but as a customer you don't dine at restaurants, go to
> doctors or hire contractors that don't have the right license, right ?
>
> How can a gov. body allow it's riders to support an event if it cannot
> ensure the riders are not being exposed to an improperly run race when
> they have no input on the guidelines which the event is run according
> to ?

`it's [sic] riders', huh?

OK, what is the low, and median annual amount of money
that a UCI license holder receives for being a UCI license
holder?

What is the low, and median annual amount of money that a
UCI license holder receives for racing in UCI sanctioned
events?

--
Michael Press

 

[Donald Munro]

amit wrote:
>> What blows my mind about this whole "scandal" is how different the
>> perception is of the rules in the US, than in maybe anywhere else in
>> the world. It's well known among riders here that riding in
>> unsanctioned races can get you disqualified. The whole sanctioning
>> system has a purpose behind it.

Michael Press wrote:
> OK, what is the low, and median annual amount of money
> that a UCI license holder receives for being a UCI license
> holder?
>
> What is the low, and median annual amount of money that a
> UCI license holder receives for racing in UCI sanctioned
> events?

Ask crit pro.

 

[Davey Crockett]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:

> http://cyclocosm.com/2006/03/rage-against-uci-machine-rant.html

It's just Verbruggen on a power trip jerking Boggy McBumBoy's chain
possibly because he sees the power of the UCI declining overall
having taken a severe hit when the BigThree Tour Organizers told him
to shove His Pro Tour and much Collateral Damage from sundry events
and occurrences recently and he wants to re-establish his authority.

The UCI is in fact taking hits from all directions and an increasingly
large number of license holders of all types, not just riders, are
asking "What did the UCI do for me Lately and what do the UCI Big
Wheels do to justify those Luxury Apartments they maintain year round
to entertain their Buddies and sundry Nanas at the UCI's expense,
which expense in reality comes out of my License fees, Levies, Fines and
Permit Fees?"

An increasingly large number of License Holders are searching their
Souls for the answer and an increasingly large number of them are
coming up with the answer which is "Nothing", and soberly contemplating
what Dogs do on Big Wheels.

In any case, that article is just a pot-boiler and someone really oughtta
tell the Apprentice Scribbler that wrote it that you won't find the
UCI in Lausanne coz they been in Aigle for the last Five years or so
to the infinite dismay of the local Nanas.

--
Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett - Actively Opposing Thought Crime
Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
Free David Irving http://www.petitiononline.com/DavidI/petition.html

 

[Ron Ruff]

amit wrote:
> but as a customer you don't dine at restaurants, go to
> doctors or hire contractors that don't have the right license, right ?

All the time... really, licenses ensure that you are paying a lot more
than you should be... and that is about it. Licenses are all about
creating an exclusive group and the benefits that go with that.

> How can a gov. body allow it's riders to support an event if it cannot
> ensure the riders are not being exposed to an improperly run race when
> they have no input on the guidelines which the event is run according
> to ?

Running a race isn't very hard. I've done hundreds of organized
unsanctioned races... and as a rule they were more fun than the
sanctioned ones.

This is so ridiculous, I wonder if you are joking...

 

[Davey Crockett]

"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> writes:

> amit wrote:
> > but as a customer you don't dine at restaurants, go to
> > doctors or hire contractors that don't have the right license, right ?
>
> All the time... really, licenses ensure that you are paying a lot more
> than you should be... and that is about it. Licenses are all about
> creating an exclusive group and the benefits that go with that.
>
> > How can a gov. body allow it's riders to support an event if it cannot
> > ensure the riders are not being exposed to an improperly run race when
> > they have no input on the guidelines which the event is run according
> > to ?
>
> Running a race isn't very hard. I've done hundreds of organized
> unsanctioned races... and as a rule they were more fun than the
> sanctioned ones.
>
> This is so ridiculous, I wonder if you are joking...
>

He has to be joking

Nobody serious would take that point of view


--
Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett - Actively Opposing Thought Crime
Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
Free David Irving http://www.petitiononline.com/DavidI/petition.html

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:

> `it's [sic] riders', huh?
>
> OK, what is the low, and median annual amount of money
> that a UCI license holder receives for being a UCI license
> holder?
>
> What is the low, and median annual amount of money that a
> UCI license holder receives for racing in UCI sanctioned
> events?

I consider holding a license to be a membership.

If I join a gym or a baseball league I expect a certain amount of
service from the league - it doesn't mean I receive an income from
them.

Also, as a member I do have a say in how the local governing body is
run and have the power to influence rules and policies.

 

[[email protected]]

> > How can a gov. body allow it's riders to support an event if it cannot
> > ensure the riders are not being exposed to an improperly run race when
> > they have no input on the guidelines which the event is run according
> > to ?
>
> Running a race isn't very hard. I've done hundreds of organized
> unsanctioned races... and as a rule they were more fun than the
> sanctioned ones.

maybe i'm not clear on what exactly is your idea of an unsanctioned
race.

having a sanction means you agree to follow rules and guidelines laid
out by someone and there are officials who make sure that is done and
that all parties are covered by liability insurance.

i see the gov. body as a service that provides that for me. if you went
out an bought your own liability insurance was that cheaper ? did the
riders have liability insurance ? how did you arrange all that ?

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> maybe i'm not clear on what exactly is your idea of an unsanctioned
> race.
>
> having a sanction means you agree to follow rules and guidelines laid
> out by someone and there are officials who make sure that is done and
> that all parties are covered by liability insurance.

Having a sanctioned race means you have the monopolist approving the conduct
of subordinate cartel members, who act to exclude intruding interests.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > `it's [sic] riders', huh?
> >
> > OK, what is the low, and median annual amount of money
> > that a UCI license holder receives for being a UCI license
> > holder?
> >
> > What is the low, and median annual amount of money that a
> > UCI license holder receives for racing in UCI sanctioned
> > events?
>
> I consider holding a license to be a membership.
>
> If I join a gym or a baseball league I expect a certain amount of
> service from the league - it doesn't mean I receive an income from
> them.
>
> Also, as a member I do have a say in how the local governing body is
> run and have the power to influence rules and policies.

You used the possessive pronoun: its riders. That is a
telling construction.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > > `it's [sic] riders', huh?
> > >
> > > OK, what is the low, and median annual amount of money
> > > that a UCI license holder receives for being a UCI license
> > > holder?
> > >
> > > What is the low, and median annual amount of money that a
> > > UCI license holder receives for racing in UCI sanctioned
> > > events?
> >
> > I consider holding a license to be a membership.
> >
> > If I join a gym or a baseball league I expect a certain amount of
> > service from the league - it doesn't mean I receive an income from
> > them.
> >
> > Also, as a member I do have a say in how the local governing body is
> > run and have the power to influence rules and policies.
>
> You used the possessive pronoun: its riders. That is a
> telling construction.

???

....and that's what i meant. i could've said "it's members", since that
would include license holders who aren't riders (staff, officials,
organizers), but like it or not, they are all part of the organization
they hold a license with.

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> having a sanction means you agree to follow rules and guidelines laid
> out by someone and there are officials who make sure that is done and
> that all parties are covered by liability insurance.
>
> i see the gov. body as a service that provides that for me. if you went
> out an bought your own liability insurance was that cheaper ? did the
> riders have liability insurance ? how did you arrange all that ?

The liability insurance protects the *gov. body*... not the riders! The
riders just have to pay for it.

I was speaking of informal races... mostly held at night in industrial
parks. No entry fees... prizes sometimes donated... just a bunch of
guys (and girls) out racing their bikes. On one particular 0.4 mile
course we'd regularly have over 100 riders. It was a blast! Categories
all the way from unlicensed riders to pros... lots of attacks and
breakaways... much more than in the sanctioned races. Dropped riders
could keep going... they just had to stay out of the way... so we'd
usually have a small group getting lapped a bunch of times. But these
are usually people with licenses who are getting a good intro to the
sport.

Of course "real" races with entry fees and prizes rarely exist because
the gov. bodies won't allow it... that is the only reason. The only
"real" service they provide is a consistent set of rules. A *good* gov.
body will do that and little else. Unfortunately, in practice they are
more like a huge parasite that tries to suck as much out of the sport
as they can without actually killing it.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 22 Mar 2006 12:19:40 -0800, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> having a sanction means you agree to follow rules and guidelines laid
>> out by someone and there are officials who make sure that is done and
>> that all parties are covered by liability insurance.
>>
>> i see the gov. body as a service that provides that for me. if you went
>> out an bought your own liability insurance was that cheaper ? did the
>> riders have liability insurance ? how did you arrange all that ?
>
>The liability insurance protects the *gov. body*... not the riders! The
>riders just have to pay for it.
>
>I was speaking of informal races... mostly held at night in industrial
>parks. No entry fees... prizes sometimes donated... just a bunch of
>guys (and girls) out racing their bikes. On one particular 0.4 mile
>course we'd regularly have over 100 riders. It was a blast! Categories
>all the way from unlicensed riders to pros... lots of attacks and
>breakaways... much more than in the sanctioned races. Dropped riders
>could keep going... they just had to stay out of the way... so we'd
>usually have a small group getting lapped a bunch of times. But these
>are usually people with licenses who are getting a good intro to the
>sport.
>
>Of course "real" races with entry fees and prizes rarely exist because
>the gov. bodies won't allow it... that is the only reason. The only
>"real" service they provide is a consistent set of rules. A *good* gov.
>body will do that and little else. Unfortunately, in practice they are
>more like a huge parasite that tries to suck as much out of the sport
>as they can without actually killing it.

Wonder what region you race in. There is no shortage of races in the
D20 area this year and I'm not hearing that there is a heavy demand
from the racers to race all together on a .4 mile course with multiple
categories - which if it happens at night per your comment they would
have to do just to finish any time before the next morning. Most
racers complain about officiating, but not too many are arguing for
races without any officials at all.

Lots of attacks on a course with multiple categories and lapped riders
at night. Yeah, I'd have jumped at that chance when I was a rider.

I can remember the ABLA days when a lot of races were a lot less
controlled and often one official pretty much ran the race and the day
- often the old guy that ran the sponsoring club. But there were fewer
permits needed and people didn't sue for their own mistakes back then.
I'm waiting for the reaction of your brave band of privateers when
someone ends up with a handlebar in their chest and suddenly no one is
responsible. For anything.

You seem to feel that there is a great hue and cry for 'critical mass'
racing - informal, no one really in charge. What I remember more is
being at a race where there were all the necessary officials and it
was well organized with plenty of support and ambulances lined up and
when **** happened, as it does, and it was all pretty well handled
(after calling in even more ambulances), we still had people standing
around and second-guessing the preparation. Not that any of THEM moved
during the process...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USa)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[[email protected]]

Ron Ruff wrote:

> > i see the gov. body as a service that provides that for me. if you went
> > out an bought your own liability insurance was that cheaper ? did the
> > riders have liability insurance ? how did you arrange all that ?
>
> The liability insurance protects the *gov. body*... not the riders! The
> riders just have to pay for it.

no it protects everybody, the riders, the organizer, the officials,
volunteers, the hosting venue or municipality.

> I was speaking of informal races... mostly held at night in industrial
> parks. No entry fees... prizes sometimes donated... just a bunch of
> guys (and girls) out racing their bikes. On one particular 0.4 mile
> course we'd regularly have over 100 riders. It was a blast! Categories
> all the way from unlicensed riders to pros... lots of attacks and
> breakaways... much more than in the sanctioned races. Dropped riders
> could keep going... they just had to stay out of the way... so we'd
> usually have a small group getting lapped a bunch of times. But these
> are usually people with licenses who are getting a good intro to the
> sport.

that kind of event can still be sanctioned.

what if someone was hurt and they decided to sue you ? what if a rider
hit a pedestrian and that person claimed damages ? about one person a
year dies in an organized bike race, why on earth would you not protect
yourself from that risk, if god forbid that were to happen ?

did you have a medic there ? who decides when a medic is required on
the scene and when it isn't ?

many races are run with a yellow line rule. who decides when a full
closure is not required ? what if someone gets hurt because the road
wasn't fully closed ? who decides when it's safe to leave in lapped
riders and when it's not ? what offical would want to carry the burden
that goes along with making those decisions unprotected ?

no one in their right mind would organize an event or be an official
under those conditons.

we organize a similar training series and we've worked with the gov.
body so we can run our event the way we want to, but still be
protected. for example the cost of having a medic on site every week
would be prohibitive, but we can work out a risk management plan that
is acceptable without having to pay for a medic every week. as part of
this the gov. body does surprise inspections at our events to make sure
that we are running them as we have agreed to -- just as health
inspectors do surprise inspections on restaurants.

a rider who crashed in my event last year (which is very similar to
your's) and was quite injured wanted to take action against me and my
organization. i was not worried because I knew i) we were covered under
liability insurance, ii) our event is run in accordance with the gov.
body's guidelines and iii) all insurance documents and waivers were
already in place. i had some headaches and long conversations with
lawyers, but in the end he knew he would not be able to convince anyone
that we were negligent in our organization of the event and the case
disappeared.

in fact in my region it is possible for any type of event including a
club ride to be sanctioned. we don't pay an additional fee for this,
but we inform the gov. body of our schedule of events. so if there is a
claim made, the organizers can be protected.

it sounds like overkill, but an an organizer who is putting in their
time and sometimes their money into the sport so that riders can enjoy
themselves should deserve some protection.

> Unfortunately, in practice they are
> more like a huge parasite that tries to suck as much out of the sport
> as they can without actually killing it.

i don't find that to be the case at all. maybe my experiences are
different than what is typical. but i see my governing body as a very
valuable service provider and is very willing to make changes to help
the sport based on the input we provide.

-Amit

 

[Mark Fennell]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
<snip>
> You seem to feel that there is a great hue and cry for 'critical mass'
> racing - informal, no one really in charge.
<snip>

Curtis, in my experience there are a lot of people who like the informal
weekday-evening training races. Nobody in charge, but everyone knows where
to go and what's going on--just like a big group ride, except you go around
in circles a bunch of times before a massive chaotic sprint. For years we
had a Wed/Thur crit in Santa Barbara that would regularly get 50-100 people
ranging from Malcolm Elliot and Kurt Stockton at one end, and total
beginners at the other end. Everyone started together. Dropped riders could
get back in later but understood to stay out of the way. Usually some gf,
bf, wife, etc. would (approximately) count laps and ring bells (or bang a
hand pump on the light pole) at the right times. Yes people crashed. Often
the same people crashed over and over again. Nobody ever sued anybody. Who
would you sue and on what grounds? Unfortunately those training races ended
a few years ago because the industrial park became too crowded and there
were just too many cars and driveways.

 

[Jeff Jones]

[email protected] wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:

> > You used the possessive pronoun: its riders. That is a
> > telling construction.
>
> ???
>
> ...and that's what i meant. i could've said "it's members", since that
> would include license holders who aren't riders (staff, officials,
> organizers), but like it or not, they are all part of the organization
> they hold a license with.

"It's" is short for "it is", and nothing else.

Jeff (ok, someone will prove me wrong now)

 

[Diablo Scott]

Jeff Jones wrote:

>
>
> "It's" is short for "it is", and nothing else.
>
> Jeff (ok, someone will prove me wrong now)
>

And "it has" it's been rumored.

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Fennell wrote:

> For years we
> had a Wed/Thur crit in Santa Barbara that would regularly get 50-100 people
> ranging from Malcolm Elliot and Kurt Stockton at one end, and total
> beginners at the other end. Everyone started together. Dropped riders could
> get back in later but understood to stay out of the way.

of course it's a lot of fun. anyone who's been riding for a while has
ridden these types of events or even ran them. what we did is approach
the gov. body and said, "this is what we do, how can you come up with a
system so that this is legit ?"

>.Nobody ever sued anybody. Who would you sue and on what grounds?

And then it happens. The person most likely held liable is the
identified as the organizer. It might not even be the rider who sues,
it might be their family or their lawyer. The possible grounds are
endless.

I was on a group ride once and a rider got hit by a car when he entered
an intersection late. When I was interviewed by the insurance co. about
the incident they were very inquisitive about who organized the ride,
whether were were a club and how we "advertised" our ride. Even on an
informal ride someone might be identifiable as a group leader or
organizer.

-Amit