> Everyone who bitched needs to write a fucking check. They're all on > their Ivory pedestal being proud of their moral stand while slashing > money being raised from programs for deserving people. Their moral > victory is a disaster for local kids and events, but they don't give a > fuck about that. Screw the innocents that get run over by their > crusade, and lose tons of funding and support, they can pat themselves > on the back. > They need to sign on to some of the other crusades too. > Personally I'd take money from the devil, and spit in his eye while > doing it, to make things better for kids who want to race. > The other thing is these people seem to be of the liberal ilk, and I > thought that giving people the chance at redemption and judging them by > their actions after falling were the key things, instead they are > acting like he should've been banished to Siberia, or sent to a > reeeducation camp. > If you want to cut out Tyler, write a fucking check. Don't kill the > innocent civilians just to claim what you think is the moral high > ground. Yeah Tyler probably cheated to get some wins, but at least he > isn't fucking over kids to feel good about himself. > Bill C
Wah, wah, wah, liberals, wah, wah. Maybe somebody should blame the "rat" who sent the results into cyclingnews.com.
How is this taking money out of the mouths of deserving juniors? The compromise stated in the velonews article means the races can still go on. The entry fee that they're losing is Tyler's.
Steve . wrote: > Les, > Could you please weigh in on this Tyler Hamilton/ Stazio criterium debate ? > Some of the rancor from another thread ... > blah blah blah ...
I recently received a call from a USA Cycling staff member asking what became of the old USCF racing rule that prohibited riders from competing in unsanctioned races, under threat of suspension. I told him that even though we had enforced it a few times in the early 1980s I came to the conclusion that it was illegal and first got it liberalized, then removed, as follows.
(1) In 1987 the exclusionary rule was liberalized to permit riders to enter all events permitted by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (Federal Public Law 95-606).
(2) The prohibition on entering unsanctioned races was removed altogether in 1996 because we believed it was inappropriate and might be in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
Therefore there is currently no basis in USCF racing rules currently for threatening suspensions over this matter, though there might be in USPRO rules, which I haven't read for awhile.
Nevertheless, given that there is a UCI rule on this matter and that USA Cycling has agreed to abide by UCI rules, there is an indirect basis for threatening suspension. The question of whether that would hold up in U.S. courts is another matter.
Les Earnest wrote: > Steve . wrote: > > Les, > > Could you please weigh in on this Tyler Hamilton/ Stazio criterium debate ? > > Some of the rancor from another thread ... > > blah blah blah ...
> I recently received a call from a USA Cycling staff member asking what > became of the old USCF racing rule that prohibited riders from competing > in unsanctioned races, under threat of suspension. I told him that even > though we had enforced it a few times in the early 1980s I came to the > conclusion that it was illegal and first got it liberalized, then > removed, as follows.
> (1) In 1987 the exclusionary rule was liberalized to permit riders to > enter all events permitted by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (Federal > Public Law 95-606).
> (2) The prohibition on entering unsanctioned races was removed > altogether in 1996 because we believed it was inappropriate and might be > in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
> Therefore there is currently no basis in USCF racing rules currently for > threatening suspensions over this matter, though there might be in USPRO > rules, which I haven't read for awhile.
> Nevertheless, given that there is a UCI rule on this matter and that USA > Cycling has agreed to abide by UCI rules, there is an indirect basis for > threatening suspension. The question of whether that would hold up in > U.S. courts is another matter.
> -Les Earnest
> P.S. I'm still not a lawyer.
Hell Les, it's rational thinking like that that got you and the other folks run out. I'd doubt that Gerard is real happy about this latest, but as you point out he's between a rock and a hard place. Since cycling doesn't have an anti-trust exemption and no real collectively bargained agreement I hope a bunch of this stuff ends up in civil courts. Now that would be fun to watch. Bill C
Les, if I read that law correctly it maintains that the UCI may not interfere in the governance of the sport in the USA. If they DO, then the USCF no longer is autonomous and must relinguish their authority as represetative of any and all of the Olympic sports.
So it looks like the UCI's windfall of getting Pro's into the Olympics may backfire into their faces at least as far as the USA is concerned.
Has anyone thought about the fact that USA Cycling said they'd abide by this rule, but also said they'd turn a blind eye as always if Tyler sat out. Let's not kid ourselves here. The olnly reason USAC cranked down or the UCI raised an issue is because Tyler was racing. I say that if you're going to raise hell over a rule then ban Pro's from all the training races. It's ridiculous that we're enfocing rules to get even with someone who we cannot enforce. Why not tell Tyler he cannot race anything or his suspension will be extended (as if that matters).
excel_spo...@hotmail.com wrote: > Has anyone thought about the fact that USA Cycling said they'd abide by > this rule, but also said they'd turn a blind eye as always if Tyler sat > out. Let's not kid ourselves here. The olnly reason USAC cranked down > or the UCI raised an issue is because Tyler was racing. I say that if > you're going to raise hell over a rule then ban Pro's from all the > training races. It's ridiculous that we're enfocing rules to get even > with someone who we cannot enforce. Why not tell Tyler he cannot race > anything or his suspension will be extended (as if that matters).
> CH
Careful Chris you're starting to sound like me on this issue ;-) Bill C
