Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla



Dan Gregory wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Like I said, you don't need a UCI license to race the Tour de France,
>> Paris Roubaix or 95% of NRC events.
>>
>> Also, it's the race organizers who determine whether or not to
>> sanction their event through the UCI. If race organizers decided
>> racers didn't need a license to compete, they could do so.
>
> They could made it a League International race but name me one rider
> who has ever competed in any major race wwithout having a licence issued
> by a UCI affiliated fed.


This year, you don't need a UCI license to compete in Paris Roubaix,
Paris Nice, the Tour de France, or Paris Tours.

The fact that the riders do have a UCI license issued from a
UCI-affiliated federation doesn't mean anything because it was up to ASO
as who they sanctioned the race.

I don't believe there is another competing federation in France.


Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> This year, you don't need a UCI license to compete in Paris Roubaix,
> Paris Nice, the Tour de France, or Paris Tours.

Oh yes you do
> The fact that the riders do have a UCI license issued from a
> UCI-affiliated federation doesn't mean anything because it was up to ASO
> as who they sanctioned the race.

Bollox.
Simple instruction to all riders & commissaires "No Licence No Ride"
What it means is they are insured. Do you think ASO would risk having
180+ non-insured riders in a race?
 
Dan Gregory wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> This year, you don't need a UCI license to compete in Paris Roubaix,
>> Paris Nice, the Tour de France, or Paris Tours.
>
>
> Oh yes you do
>
>> The fact that the riders do have a UCI license issued from a
>> UCI-affiliated federation doesn't mean anything because it was up to
>> ASO as who they sanctioned the race.
>
>
> Bollox.
> Simple instruction to all riders & commissaires "No Licence No Ride"
> What it means is they are insured. Do you think ASO would risk having
> 180+ non-insured riders in a race?


So you don't think the race to the top of Mt. Washington has insurance?
That's not a sanctioned race and you don't need a license to ride it.

Licensure or race sanction has nothing to do with insurance.


Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> So you don't think the race to the top of Mt. Washington has insurance?
> That's not a sanctioned race and you don't need a license to ride it.


Hard as it may be it is not a major race (nor are RAAM or PBP)
Keep digging you'll be in the Antipodes soon.
 
Dan Gregory wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> This year, you don't need a UCI license to compete in Paris Roubaix,
>> Paris Nice, the Tour de France, or Paris Tours.
>
>
> Oh yes you do
>
>> The fact that the riders do have a UCI license issued from a
>> UCI-affiliated federation doesn't mean anything because it was up to
>> ASO as who they sanctioned the race.
>
>
> Bollox.
> Simple instruction to all riders & commissaires "No Licence No Ride"
> What it means is they are insured. Do you think ASO would risk having
> 180+ non-insured riders in a race?


Race insurance covers any competitor (licensed or not) and spectators.
You don't need to have a racing license to be covered by insurance.

Do you think those little children who compete for a medal in a kid's
race during a USAC sanctioned event have a racing license? They don't.
But you can bet your ass they are covered by the race insurance, which
goes against your "No Licence No Ride" rule.

Think before you post.

Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Do you think those little children who compete for a medal in a kid's
> race during a USAC sanctioned event have a racing license? They don't.
> But you can bet your ass they are covered by the race insurance, which
> goes against your "No Licence No Ride" rule.

Kids races here have temporary licences if they don't have UCI juvenile
junior ones etc.
"No Licence No Ride" applies to all properly organised races for all
ages even if the licence is a day licence.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1019&sID=1284
 
Dan Gregory wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Do you think those little children who compete for a medal in a kid's
>> race during a USAC sanctioned event have a racing license? They don't.
>> But you can bet your ass they are covered by the race insurance, which
>> goes against your "No Licence No Ride" rule.
>
>
> Kids races here have temporary licences if they don't have UCI juvenile
> junior ones etc.
> "No Licence No Ride" applies to all properly organised races for all
> ages even if the licence is a day licence.
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1019&sID=1284



Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone a
"UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.


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

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article
> > <ae921cdd-259a-4686-99fc-3700dc5bce44@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mar 24, 1:30 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it's more a matter of having no other choice at the moment than
> >>>the UCI. If they don't sign up for a UCI license and agree to the
> >>>conditions set,
> >>>they won't get to race the races worth racing.
> >
> >
> >>you could say the same thing with regards to say the SEC and
> >>securities trading.
> >
> >
> > Mmm, I don't think that really is a very good example. If you want to do
> > business and avoid the SEC and its oversight, you can set up the business in
> > another country and import the product to the US. You can still do business at
> > the highest levels and you don't have to deal with the SEC. Or you keep the
> > business non-public. But in cycling, if you want to race at the highest levels,
> > you must join the UCI.

> Wrong.
>
> The only reason forcing riders to take out a UCI license is their own
> teams and personal decision to do so.
>
> A rider can race all ASO events including the Tour de France and the
> entire NRC in the United States without taking out a UCI license.
>
> Do you consider racing the Tour de France to be "the highest level?"

Do you really believe that a rider could get on a top level team without a UCI
license? I don't think that'd happen. A team wanting to race all the big events seems
to have to be in the ProTour and I'd think that the UCI wouldn't want non-licensed
riders in its events.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><ae921cdd-259a-4686-99fc-3700dc5bce44@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mar 24, 1:30 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps it's more a matter of having no other choice at the moment than
>>>>>the UCI. If they don't sign up for a UCI license and agree to the
>>>>>conditions set,
>>>>>they won't get to race the races worth racing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>you could say the same thing with regards to say the SEC and
>>>>securities trading.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mmm, I don't think that really is a very good example. If you want to do
>>>business and avoid the SEC and its oversight, you can set up the business in
>>>another country and import the product to the US. You can still do business at
>>>the highest levels and you don't have to deal with the SEC. Or you keep the
>>>business non-public. But in cycling, if you want to race at the highest levels,
>>>you must join the UCI.
>
>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>The only reason forcing riders to take out a UCI license is their own
>>teams and personal decision to do so.
>>
>>A rider can race all ASO events including the Tour de France and the
>>entire NRC in the United States without taking out a UCI license.
>>
>>Do you consider racing the Tour de France to be "the highest level?"
>
>
> Do you really believe that a rider could get on a top level team without a UCI
> license? I don't think that'd happen. A team wanting to race all the big events seems
> to have to be in the ProTour and I'd think that the UCI wouldn't want non-licensed
> riders in its events.
>


There is no Pro Tour. You don't need a UCI license to race any ASO event.

Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone a
> "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.

Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
Mogillapond

http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727

The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
 
Dan Gregory wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>> a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>
>
> Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
> Mogillapond
>
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>
> The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
> very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
> With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
> sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....


The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.

I know of no union who takes more money from management than the
workers. Do you?

Sounds like you are confused.

Magilla
 
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dan Gregory wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>> a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>
>>
>> Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>> Mogillapond
>>
>> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>
>> The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>> very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>> With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>> sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>
>
>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.

Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.

>I know of no union who takes more money from management than the
>workers. Do you?
>
>Sounds like you are confused.

Sounds more like UCI is confused.

Ron
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> The UCI is not a cycling union.

Union Cycliste Internationale or in English International Cycling UNION
 
RonSonic wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>Mogillapond
>>>
>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>
>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>
>>
>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>
>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>
> Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.

>
> Ron

Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
of workers and unions.

What did I just tell you people? I said: Think before you post.

Magilla
 
Dan Gregory wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> The UCI is not a cycling union.
>
>
> Union Cycliste Internationale or in English International Cycling UNION


They could put the word "hospital" in their title if they wanted.
What's your point with this little game of semantics you're playing?



Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
What's
> your point with this little game of semantics you're playing?

I'm a semasiologist on the last day of my Easter break....
:))
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> What's
>> your point with this little game of semantics you're playing?

Dan Gregory wrote:
> I'm a semasiologist on the last day of my Easter break....
> :))

You've got bragging rights on first use in rbr.

Come to think of it MagillaGorilla may not be a
semasiologist but he probably is a semeniologist.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > What's
> >> your point with this little game of semantics you're playing?
>
> Dan Gregory wrote:
> > I'm a semasiologist on the last day of my Easter break....
> > :))
>
> You've got bragging rights on first use in rbr.
>
> Come to think of it MagillaGorilla may not be a
> semasiologist but he probably is a semeniologist.

A ***** monkey?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>Mogillapond
>>>>
>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>>
>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>>
>>>
>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>>
>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>>
>> Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.
>
>>
>> Ron
>
>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>of workers and unions.

No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

The employer, is, to use a technical term, the "employer."

That you need to haggle and negotiate with someone does not make him an
adversary.

>What did I just tell you people? I said: Think before you post.

You said, but didn't do.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>>Mogillapond
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>>>
>>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>>>
>>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>>>
>>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.
>>
>>>Ron
>>
>>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>>of workers and unions.
>
>
> No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
> screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

>
> Ron


Hey dickweed,

Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.

This is not debatable. Unions are formed to protect workers from being
exploited by their employers. The relationship is adversarial. Ever
hear of something called a strike? That's when union members strike
against their own employers.

So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.

You're a moron.

Magilla
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
3
Views
368
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
A
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
70
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Howard Kveck
H
R
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
7
Views
387
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
M
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
21
Views
570
Road Cycling
Tom Kunich
T
T
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
0
Views
305
Road Cycling
Tom Kunich
T
A
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
1
Views
448
Road Cycling
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
F
M
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
2
Views
347
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
D
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
0
Views
254
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
B
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
2
Views
243
Road Cycling
Bill C
B
C
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
7
Views
281
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
Top Bottom Back