WARNING:plug your handlebar ends
jdjp
It is always amazing to us that some athletes spend hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars on racing: entry fees, airfares, bike boxes,
clothing, nutritional aids to make them go faster..but often neglect the
tuning of their bikes, or having bar ends open that will lead to a DQ.
This minimally priced item is rarely ever kept on hand, but one will see
several pairs of shoes, expensive sunglasses, Powerbars and Cliff Bars
(to name just a few)that probably cost more than an end plug.
Just think about this and be safer and avoid the DQ. An officials
responsibility is to enforce the rules.....and this is one of them. It
is the athletes responsibility to be prepared to race according to the
rules.
JP
USAT Official
Michael G. Hoyt
the cop? "I was just as safe driving 10 mph faster than the speed limit."
Do you think he'll care. Its fine to debate the merits of a rule, but when
it is said and done it is that, a rule. If the next race you're in requires
your helmet be worn backwards, you'll have two choices: 1) do it, or 2) go
home, don't pass GO, don't collect $200.
M
Mike Bundy wrote:
> Yeah, sure.
>
> However, I think that one of the points being made is: if it's a safety
> issue, then the competitor should not get a chance to be in a position
> to be DQ'd. ie they shouldn't have been allowed to rack their bike in
> the first place, without this safety point being checked.
>
> Once allowed to rack a bike, a competitor should consider that their
> bike has been found to be acceptable to the race referee -- DQing a bike
> AFTER this point leaves the organisers open to valid argument from the
> DQ'd competitor -- eg What's to say someone didn't pinch the bar-ends
> from their bike when they noticed that such spot checks were being made
> of racked bikes ???
>
> -- MB.
>
> jdjp wrote in message <371BE...@sylvania.sev.org>...
Mike Bundy
Mike Bundy
All I'm saying is that if it's supposedly a safety rule, then you should
be stopped BEFORE you get a chance to break it. To not do so would be
equivalent to allowing riders to mount their bike without a helmet, and
then DQing them after the race -- by which point the rider's safety has
already been compromised by allowing them to race sans helmet (no
arguments on helmet safety, please...). If you were to try that one,
I'll bet you'll get yelled at loudly by the race officials to go back
and get your helmet ie they won't let you break the rule. Some rules
(mostly safety) should be enforced BEFORE they get broken -- others
(such as drafting) can be enforced after the event.
Seems a simple enough thing to me, and at most races I attend here (Oz)
you have to present your bike for a safety check before being allowed
into the bike compound -- so I assume race organisers also agree.
-- MB.
Michael G. Hoyt wrote in message <371C05D9...@transport.com>...
>Hey, I think super slow speed limits are stupid. What am I going to
tell
>the cop? "I was just as safe driving 10 mph faster than the speed
limit."
>Do you think he'll care. Its fine to debate the merits of a rule, but
when
>it is said and done it is that, a rule. If the next race you're in
requires
>your helmet be worn backwards, you'll have two choices: 1) do it, or 2)
go
>home, don't pass GO, don't collect $200.
>
>M
>
>Mike Bundy wrote:
>
Brian Wagner
> Athletes should be accountable for their equipment being in good repair.
>
> It is always amazing to us that some athletes spend hundreds, if not
> thousands of dollars on racing: entry fees, airfares, bike boxes,
> clothing, nutritional aids to make them go faster..but often neglect the
> tuning of their bikes, or having bar ends open that will lead to a DQ.
> This minimally priced item is rarely ever kept on hand, but one will see
> several pairs of shoes, expensive sunglasses, Powerbars and Cliff Bars
> (to name just a few)that probably cost more than an end plug.
>
> Just think about this and be safer and avoid the DQ. An officials
> responsibility is to enforce the rules.....and this is one of them. It
> is the athletes responsibility to be prepared to race according to the
> rules.
>
> JP
> USAT Official
A friend of mine was a CART official - in that sport, the 'equipment'
(Indycars) costs MILLIONS of dollars, and yet, the officials perform
safety AND competitiveness equipment inspections BEFORE allowing
participation. They also inspect a few items after the race on winning
cars, but these inspections are specifically designed to catch ONLY
intentional cheating.
It all comes down to a question of the purpose of officiating - is it
to maximize ccmpliance with the rules, or is it to satisfy someone's
need to say "gotcha" by DQ'ing people? Is the relationship between
participants and officials supposed to be adversarial, or is everyone
out to cooperate in having a good race? Is effective law enforcement
characerized by how many people are ticketed or jailed, or by how few
crimes are committed? As an official, do you get satisfaction from
knowing that you served to provide a safe and fair race to your
customers (yes, they PAID to race, and even if you didn't get any of
that money, you derived SOME sort of satisfaction from officiating, or
you wouldn't do it) or do you make hash marks on your official's t-shirt
for every DQ you issue? Think about it.
As for the athlete's responsibility to be prepared to race according to
the rules, think about this. There have been a lot of threads here
about how to grow the sport. In two years of racing, the only
information any race organizer has ever provided to me about rules was
in one race where they said drafting was illegal, and even then, in a
lot of research, I have yet to see a definition of when someone is in
violation that would pass scrutiny for unconstitutional vagueness if it
was legislated into law. This thread is the first I've heard of the
need for bar ends. Imagine some person who decides to do their first
triathlon, and is DQ'd while in the water because of a spot check of
their bike which was admitted to the transition area uninspected. Now,
just how enthusiastic do you think they're going to be about continuing
in the sport? First impressions are the strongest. I'm not suggesting
charity - have inspections at entry to the transition area, and invite
an LBS to set up a kiosk right next to the inspection station and rake
in a profit. But every official had better start thinking in capitalist
mode - triathlon participation is on an at will basis - people can opt
out whenever they want. If the way you enforce the rules leaves a bad
taste in enough mouths, then people will find another sport to
participate in and you will have nothing to officiate.
At the very least, before spouting about responsibilities for
preparation to compete according to the rules, every race packet should
include a complete enumeration of those rules, and enforcement of
potential violations should be looked for and brought to participant's
attention at a point where it can be corrected whenever possible. That
is, unless you see the role of officials as to minimize the number of
qualified finishers, and ultimately participants in the sport.
Charlie Crawford
interesting US legal system and the habits of those who sue. In my
opinion, personal responsibility is at the core of triathlon. USAT
officials enforce the USAT Competitive Rules. Race Directors are in
charge of safety. USAT officials have no way of enforcing safety,
without becoming involved in liability suits. Therefore, if we see
someone riding without a helmet, our Competitive Rules dictate that we
assign a penalty. Same with bar ends. The Race Director has safety
as his prime responsibility (hopefully). So, the transition
volunteers will be yelling at competitors to fasten their helmets,
slow down, etc. they also will check bikes, helmets, etc. when
athletes arrive in transition.
So, if an official cites an athlete for no bar ends (or helmet, etc.),
perhaps the athlete should approach the race director and complain,
"Why did you allow me to race? Why didn't you check my bike a little
better? Why should I have to be responsible to know the rules or be
safe, when you could have told me what to do? Why didn't you buy me
some bar ends?"
Again, as far as the official goes, he can only go by the book - never
crossing the line, or end up in court with plaintiff's attorney doing
the interrogation.
-Charlie
Charlie Crawford
company. My point here was to give fair warning. I'm quite sure i
have suceeded, given the surprising number of replies. I will return
to lurk status so that I won't clog up any more bandwidth.
See you at the races.
-Charlie
msc...@my-dejanews.com
(newsreader problems), but here's what I think:
Charlie has a rule in effect. If rules are not enforced/adhered to they
become invalid. This affects all of the rules, not just the one(s) not being
enforced. I agree with Charlie, and I appreciated the reminder/fair warning
he gave us at the start of this thread. It's difficult to remember all of
the rules, and any type of reminder helps, and is appreciated.
Given that the rule must be enforced (if not then remove the rule), there
are varying ways of enforcing that rule. There seems to be general agreement
that the in-water corral bike check or first-run of a duathlon bike check is
unfair and to allow the competitor to continue on a DQ'd bike is hugely
unfair (and seems to contradict the bike check reason in itself). Most
people seem to think that the bike check should be done well before the race
and with the competitor present. That would allow for adequate time to
repair/replace.
I disagree with the idea of asking USAT or the RD to provide "little things"
like handlebar plugs. However, and industrious bike shop owner that is at
the race for flat fix duty or whatever might do himself some good will by
providing handlebar plugs. It is the racer's responsibility to have a good
working bike, and all but the one day license folks really have no grounds
for arguing they didn't know the rules.
Perhaps this rule in particular needs to be rethought, just like the speed
limits, if enough people disagree with it, change it. Perhaps it's a good
rule, if so, then the way the bike check and penalty are conducted/handed
out should be rethought. It sounds like an almost universal dislike for the
current practice of corall type while the racers are swimming check exists,
and maybe that should be stopped immediately.
I dunno, I just find myself agreeing with Charlie here, which is actually
kind of unusual.
Schwing
In article <371c7a8c...@news.gte.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kevin Wuertz
because when they wrapped their bars they failed to leave enough tape
tucked into the inside of the ends of the bars. So if you give them a new
one it just keeps popping out. Or if you really want never to loose a bar
end use the old barends from Benotto. They go over the outside of the bars
and then you wrap over them. You will never loose one and hence never know
what a self biopsy feels like, well unless the fool next to you crashes
into you w/o barends. ...and hence the reason for the bar end rule.
Kevin
Bruce Platt
I dont know what you think we get paid to Officiate a race ( hint it is not
worth the money). I do it to give back to the sport I love, and I have a
good time doing it. I DO NOT ENJOY GIVING OUT PENALTIES. There is no better
spot to watch the real competition of the race then from the Officials point
of view, riding along watching some of the best athletes in the world is a
great perk of the job.
Unfortunatley in our litigonous society, If we exposed the Officials to the
possiblity of a lawsuit, most officials would be forced to resign. I cannot
put the financial well being of my family at risk for a volunteer position.
As a reminder it is incumbant on each athlete to know the rules of the sport
BEFORE competing. To this end USATriathlon will soon have the 1999 Rules of
Competition available on its website.
Bruce Platt
USAT Cat 1 Official
Chairman USAT Safety & Rules Committee
Brian Wagner wrote in message <371C7691...@mr.picker.com>...
>jdjp wrote:
>
>> Athletes should be accountable for their equipment being in good repair.
>>
>> It is always amazing to us that some athletes spend hundreds, if not
>> thousands of dollars on racing: entry fees, airfares, bike boxes,
>> clothing, nutritional aids to make them go faster..but often neglect the
>> tuning of their bikes, or having bar ends open that will lead to a DQ.
>> This minimally priced item is rarely ever kept on hand, but one will see
>> several pairs of shoes, expensive sunglasses, Powerbars and Cliff Bars
>> (to name just a few)that probably cost more than an end plug.
>>
>> Just think about this and be safer and avoid the DQ. An officials
>> responsibility is to enforce the rules.....and this is one of them. It
>> is the athletes responsibility to be prepared to race according to the
>> rules.
>>
>> JP
>> USAT Official
Treemoss2
At the pre-race meetings have an announcement about the need for all handlebars
to be plugged. A simple solution. After one season or less of this everyone
will be aware and there will be no excuse. They always mention drafting and
they can mention this.
Probably the ones who need most to know this would be the newbies at tris. They
may be doing their first one, not have access to a rule book, may be riding
borrowed bikes. Perhaps a poster mounted at signup with the basic rules of
triathlon, the ones that apply especially to safety, would be appropriate.
Another fairly simple idea.
To Charlie Crawford - I would imagine that since you felt a need to first post
about this as a problem, then, since you give such a clear explanation of
drafting at the races you officiate, why not mention the plug thing sometime in
your talk?
Instead of all this talk about personal responsibilty the above would go a long
way towards solving this "problem."
Plus, if all the above were implemented, then there would be NO EXCUSE AT ALL.
And I would have to say, "Book 'em, Charlie."
Ken
Treemoss2
Brian Wagner
> I dont know what you think we get paid to Officiate a race ( hint it is not
> worth the money). I do it to give back to the sport I love, and I have a
> good time doing it. I DO NOT ENJOY GIVING OUT PENALTIES. There is no better
> spot to watch the real competition of the race then from the Officials point
> of view, riding along watching some of the best athletes in the world is a
> great perk of the job.
I never said you got paid - I said you derived benefit, or you wouldn't
do it. YOur paragraph proves it. YOu speak of all the perks and
satisfaction. Do they have to be in dollars for you to miss them if the
sport fades away?
> Unfortunatley in our litigonous society, If we exposed the Officials to the
> possiblity of a lawsuit, most officials would be forced to resign. I cannot
> put the financial well being of my family at risk for a volunteer position.
No one is asking officials to expose themselves to lawsuits. I simply
said to enforce equipment rules in a manner which gives racers the
opportunity to correct the noncompliance, AT THEIR OWN COST, so as to
participate. HOw hard is this for people to comprehend? Check ALL the
bikes before the race, and if they're non-compliant, tell them to fix it
or go home. Any other methodology only exposes you to MORE potential
liability. If you do ANY equipment enforcement, it should be done in a
manner that guarantees you apply it with equal rigor to ALL bikes, and
pre-race inspections on admission to the transition area is the ONLY
prudent way to assure this. You can';t know that you'll adequately
cover ALL the bikes during the swim, but if you even try, you are
implying a responsibility for seeijng that unsafe bikes don't get on the
course. If you REALLY want to cover yourself legally, you have two
choices - apply an equally rigorous inspection to ALL bikes in the less
frantic atmosphere of athletes ariving before the race, when each bike
can be individually looked over, or do no inspections or equipment
enforcement at all. Quick spot checks during the swim or on the course
are asking for legal trouble. By checking, you acknowledge the hazard
and accept a role in preventing it, but you don't exercise diligence in
acting on that acknowledgement and acceptance.
>
> As a reminder it is incumbant on each athlete to know the rules of the sport
> BEFORE competing. To this end USATriathlon will soon have the 1999 Rules of
> Competition available on its website.
And a fat lot of good this does for some runner/swimmer who has never
raced a bike before, who picks up an entry form at the city rec center
and shows up for race day registration. That's a significant percentage
of beginners, and your statement would have them go away mad, with the
impression that triathlon is not about athletics, but a contest of
anal-retentiveness, and never sign up for another race. Again, what are
your goals here - a fair and safe race for everyone, or the satisfaction
of sticking it to someone? What kind of impression do you want to make
on first-timers? For crying out loud, people on this NG called ME a
hard-ass?
Dan Ackerstein
I, for one, appreciate the warning and cannot believe how many of the posts on this
subject, whatever their content (or lack thereof), failed to say "thanks for the
reminder, charlie."
thanks for the reminder.
dan ackerstein
Charlie Crawford wrote:
> Okay, now I have been chastised by Mr Wagner. I suppose I'm in good
> company. My point here was to give fair warning. I'm quite sure i
> have suceeded, given the surprising number of replies. I will return
> to lurk status so that I won't clog up any more bandwidth.
>
> See you at the races.
>
> -Charlie
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:44:01 -0400, Brian Wagner
> <bwa...@mr.picker.com> wrote:
>
Bruce Platt
Brian Wagner wrote in message <371C9ED3...@mr.picker.com>...
>
>No one is asking officials to expose themselves to lawsuits. I simply
>said to enforce equipment rules in a manner which gives racers the
>opportunity to correct the noncompliance, AT THEIR OWN COST, so as to
>participate. HOw hard is this for people to comprehend? Check ALL the
>bikes before the race, and if they're non-compliant, tell them to fix it
>or go home. Any other methodology only exposes you to MORE potential
>liability. If you do ANY equipment enforcement, it should be done in a
>manner that guarantees you apply it with equal rigor to ALL bikes, and
>pre-race inspections on admission to the transition area is the ONLY
>prudent way to assure this. You can';t know that you'll adequately
>cover ALL the bikes during the swim, but if you even try, you are
>implying a responsibility for seeijng that unsafe bikes don't get on the
>course. If you REALLY want to cover yourself legally, you have two
>choices - apply an equally rigorous inspection to ALL bikes in the less
>frantic atmosphere of athletes ariving before the race, when each bike
>can be individually looked over, or do no inspections or equipment
>enforcement at all. Quick spot checks during the swim or on the course
>are asking for legal trouble. By checking, you acknowledge the hazard
>and accept a role in preventing it, but you don't exercise diligence in
>acting on that acknowledgement and acceptance.
As I mentioned in another post, and I will repeat it here. USAT OFFICIALS DO
NOT DO PRE RACE BIKE INSPECTIONS. We only enforce the rules as they are
written. If you break a rule and an Official sees the infraction it is
incumbent on him to dole out the proper penalty as described in the
rulebook. We dont run around making up or changing rules on race day.
I think ( or rather know from experience) that most Officials try to help
people conform to the rules and enjoy the raceday. But it is incumbent on
the individual racing to know and follow the rules. Newby or experienced
vet, I dont mean to be a hard ass about it but some people here are
suggesting that the Officials bear the responsibility for repairing bikes
that violate the rules. WRONG!
At one race last year, where the bikes were racked the night prior to the
race, (Wilkes Barre)As Head Ref I inspected the bike corral in the morning
before the T Area was open . We made note of the offending bikes and had the
numbers announced for those athletes to see me so they could correct the
problem.
>>
>> As a reminder it is incumbant on each athlete to know the rules of the
sport
>> BEFORE competing. To this end USATriathlon will soon have the 1999 Rules
of
>> Competition available on its website.
>
>And a fat lot of good this does for some runner/swimmer who has never
>raced a bike before, who picks up an entry form at the city rec center
>and shows up for race day registration. That's a significant percentage
>of beginners, and your statement would have them go away mad, with the
>impression that triathlon is not about athletics, but a contest of
>anal-retentiveness, and never sign up for another race. Again, what are
>your goals here - a fair and safe race for everyone, or the satisfaction
>of sticking it to someone? What kind of impression do you want to make
>on first-timers? For crying out loud, people on this NG called ME a
>hard-ass?
The impression I want to make on people that are first timers and people who
see the sport for the first time, is that this is a REAL SPORT. And like
real sports it has rules , like baseball and basketball. It is a sport that
deserves respect for the many gifted athletes , I dont want it to be viewed
a a fringe sport like dual downhill synchronized skateboarding.
My goals as an Official are not to penalize, but to insure a level playing
field for all who wish to compete, but when a rule is violated it is my job
to follow the rules as they are written. And the rulebook says if the bars
are not plugged that there is an appropriate penalty , I dont get to decide
how to handle the situation, that would not be fair. The rules are written
in black and white for all to read.
A first timer is certainly cognizant of atleast some rules, so a rational
person would expect there must be a body of rules for the sport. And to that
end I hope to make it easier for people to know these rules by making them
available for the first time on the web.
Sorry for the Rant,
Bruce Platt
Mike Bundy
sort of equipment -- I agree absolutely that it's not the organisers job
to provide such items. It's the competitors job to comply with the rules
and if they don't have the specified items (in the specified state) then
send them packing until they comply.
Now whether or not organisers choose to provide a bike-fixing,
parts-supply service is another issue. At some races I've done such a
service is provided -- I know -- I had my bike rejected at my first IM
and had to take it to be fixed. I appreciated the service provided
(saved me from a MAJOR panic) but I don't see it as a responsibility of
the organisers to provide such services or spare-parts etc.
However, on the point of safety enforcement, while I'm obviously an
outsider to your legal system, I would have thought it a basic tenant
that a race official must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety
of the competitors in the event. If wearing a helmet or having your bars
plugged are essentially safety rules, then officials must take all
reasonable steps to ensure that you comply. Knowingly allowing you to
compromise your safety by breaking these rules and simply DQing later is
not, IMO, taking reasonable action.
You pay your money to compete in an organised event, and that includes
race safety. As a member of the organisers, a race official is expected
to be safety conscious and to perform tasks in this regard. For your
part you agree that despite this, should something untoward happen, you
exonerate them (the waiver). However, I don't believe the waiver would
not be effective if officials did not take reasonable steps to ensure
your safety and you were injured as a result. In other words, by turning
a temporary blind eye to a safety breach, and penalising later, a race
official IMO is exposing themselves to a risk of litigation. By stepping
in and preventing the rider from continuing (or stopping them from
getting a start until they comply) they are eliminating this risk by
enforcing the rules.
Extreme example: Suppose I was to turn up to the race and attempt to
rack my motorcycle in the race compound. I can't imagine the officials
allowing me to race it and then DQing me later -- they'd tell me to piss
off before I got anywhere near the racks, and come back when I have a
push-bike. Same thing with bar-ends IMO, if they are aware of it and
it's safety rule, then the competitor should be advised to go away and
come back when they comply with the rule.
-- MB.
Charlie Crawford wrote in message <371c7a8c...@news.gte.net>...
Mike Bundy
I'm saying that it's one thing for an official not to be aware of a
safety breach, and DQ later when they become aware of it (eg be informed
by volunteers that rider X removed their helmet during the race). But
it's an entirely different matter to be aware of an impending safety
breach and not take reasonable steps to prevent it's occurrence (eg
seeing someone exiting the bike compound without a helmet and choosing
not to say anything).
Walking around the compound making a note of bikes without bar-ends is,
IMO, making yourself aware of an impending safety breach. At that point,
choosing to allow it to occur without taking reasonable steps to prevent
it (ie notifying the competitor that their bike is in breach of safety
rules) is culpable action, and that official bears some responsibility
for any consequences, should they simply allow it to occur.
In other words, it's one thing not to pre-check for potential safety
breaches (something I've actually not experienced here in Oz) but it's
an entirely different matter to check for it, find it, and then do
nothing about preventing it's occurrence.
Hope this clears up my position on this issue.
-- MB.
Mike Bundy wrote in message <7fiu4o$69$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
SloPoke29
Quotable quote:
"it has too many pages." Athlete's response to me as I was explaining why I
issued a foul to him and asked if he read the USAT Rule Book.
_________
My first year in multisport I got nailed quite a few times with penalities.
Instead of coping a 'tude, I would always the official about my fouls.
Afterwards I read the rule book. I learned the rules. It strengthened my
interest in this sport. Rules, yeah! Keep it fair, clean and safe.
Nothing wrong with learning the rules. It was a good day for me, I learned
something.
I am smart enough learn how to play baseball, racquetball, bowling and golf and
abide by the rules of each sport. I am indeed smart enough to learn the rules
of Triathlon.
If I am going to train, pay good money and travel to a sanctioned race, I'm
going know the rules for a sanctioned race. It's my responsibility. Not the
RD, Volunteer, Official (they are to educate and enforce), Neighbor in
Transition.
If I do not like the rules then either Lobby For Change or do not Participate.
If I choose to Participate I will abide by the rules.
What is so difficult about that?
Rick
hu...@my-dejanews.com
msc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> Charlie has a rule in effect. If rules are not enforced/adhered to they
> become invalid. This affects all of the rules, not just the one(s) not being
> enforced. I agree with Charlie, and I appreciated the reminder/fair warning
> he gave us at the start of this thread. It's difficult to remember all of
> the rules, and any type of reminder helps, and is appreciated.
At the final 2 races I did last year they handed out a bunch of DQs for
unplugged bar ends. However, afterwards they took all of the DQs away. I
think this was a good decision. It generated awareness of the problem
without resulting in a big confrontation. You can be sure those athletes
will remember to plug them before their next race. If not, then shame on
them - they had more than a fair warning! And it lead me to notify a friend
who I lent one of my old bikes to make sure the ends are plugged before she
races (pretty sure at least one of the plugs fell out years ago).
The problem I have with this whole issue is that if an official finds a bike
with unplugged bar ends and it is truly a safety issue, how can they possibly
even let the racer continue on the bike? The racer should NOT be allowed to
race on that bike (unless they can fix it on the spot with the plugs they
just happen to have in their transition bag, not likely!). Of course this
would be far more infuriating to a lot of racers who are just out to
challenge themselves (and don't care about the results) than the current
policy of letting them do the whole race then DQing them. I know how ticked
off I'd be if I came out of the water only to have an official tell me I
couldn't continue. However, if it is a safety issue then this is the time to
tell the athlete, not after they have finished riding on an unsafe bike! Once
they have safely finished the race it just seems kind of silly to then DQ
them for a safety issue.
I don't think either of the races that gave out the unplugged bar end
penalties had bike inspections so it really would be the athlete's
responsibility to know the rules. As others have mentioned it would be nice
to have a sign posted with various infractions and their consequences. I
assumed most of these unplugged bar end penalties went to the beginners/1-day
pass people who don't even have a rule book.
-hug
Bruce Platt
hu...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7fkkpp$11h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
By the letter of the rulebook, if you didnot wear your helmet, as an
Official I could do nothing but give you a penalty. All issues of safety are
the complete responsibilty of the Race Organizers. USAT Officials just
enforce the competitive rules.
Bruce
David W.
> Okay, now I have been chastised by Mr Wagner. I suppose I'm in good
> company. My point here was to give fair warning. I'm quite sure i
> have suceeded, given the surprising number of replies. I will return
> to lurk status so that I won't clog up any more bandwidth.
You and Bruce, both. You represent USAT. If you can't do that in a
responsible and respectful manner on RST, you should not be part of
USAT. Responsiblity comes with your title, even though you are a
volunteer. Brian may get out of hand in some posts, but he had some very
good issues and concerns. I have yet to see either you or Bruce address
that issue other than say "write USAT".
Do you feel there is a need for a change? If not, please explain. If so,
why not lead the effort?
David / FEY2K
--------------------------------
reply @ wuth - family - atlanta
(remove spaces)
at att dot net
David W.
> USAT officials enforce the USAT Competitive Rules. Race Directors are in
> charge of safety.
You're setting yourself up for a mess, Charlie. Handlebar plugs have
nothing to do with competition and everything to do with safety.
> USAT officials have no way of enforcing safety, without becoming involved in
> liability suits.
Yes, but USAT could refuse to sanction races if the directors are not
willing to ensure safety.
> Therefore, if we see someone riding without a helmet, our Competitive Rules
> dictate that we assign a penalty. Same with bar ends.
Sounds like a change is needed. Helmets and plugs have nothing to do
with competition. Therefore, USAT should not even be concerned with
those issues, unless USAT is concerned with safety. Perhaps USAT should
add some requirements of RD's regarding safety in order to provide USAT
certification.
> The Race Director has safety as his prime responsibility (hopefully). So, the
> transition volunteers will be yelling at competitors to fasten their helmets,
> slow down, etc. they also will check bikes, helmets, etc. when
> athletes arrive in transition.
But, that is not required by USAT (AFAIK), nor is it done at all USAT
races. If that is how USAT feels, it should be required of RD's.
> So, if an official cites an athlete for no bar ends (or helmet, etc.),
> perhaps the athlete should approach the race director and complain,
Why not complain to USAT about providing sanctioning to a race where the
RD does not care about safety?
You can't walk on both sides of this fence, Charlie. Either USAT wants
safe races or it does not. Halfway is not good enough.
> Again, as far as the official goes, he can only go by the book
Time to change the book!!!
Brian Wagner
>
> Charlie Crawford wrote:
> > USAT officials enforce the USAT Competitive Rules. Race Directors are in
> > charge of safety.
>
> You're setting yourself up for a mess, Charlie. Handlebar plugs have
> nothing to do with competition and everything to do with safety.
>
> > USAT officials have no way of enforcing safety, without becoming involved in
> > liability suits.
>
But you're already in that danger. Any lawyers here care to comment on
the following scenario?
Somebody is permanently maimed in a USAT triathlon by someone else's
unplugged bar end taking a core sample of their kidney in a bike pile
up. DOzens of forensic, medical, and safety experts are lined up to
testify that they would have walked away with a bruise had the bar been
plugged. Upon further investigation, it comes to light that the bar
never had a plug in it, and a USAT official noted this in a spot check
during the swim, and a DQ was awaiting the offending racer at the finish
line. Thus we have a person (the official) with full knowledge of a
hazardous situation, a level of training to fully appreciate the gravity
of the situation, and the authority to do something about it (don't tell
me an official couldn't do something about it - if someone was
committing ongoing hazardous competitive fouls, like tackling people on
the run course, they'd remove them, or at least they could get a
representative of the RD to pull someone off the course under threat of
withdrawing sanction for the race, at the very least approach the racer
in transition and inform him he id DQed and it is pointless to
continue.) The owner of the offending bike is deposed and testifiies
that he was after an award and had he known he was disqualified, he
would not have proceeded. The official thus knowingly allowed the
hazard to persist, and the injury of your client resulted. Would you
name the offical as a defendant?
> You can't walk on both sides of this fence, Charlie. Either USAT wants
> safe races or it does not. Halfway is not good enough.
Exactly - if you are going to have rules that address safety issues (who
gains competitively from unplugged bars?) then they should be enforced
in a manner that actually enhances safety - proactively, not
retroactively after everyone has been exposed to the hazard.
Bruce Platt
Please read what Charlie and I have written. We are talking about "USAT
Officials" only. Do not confuse that with the functions of USAT and their
sanctioning process. USAT is deeply concerned with safety.
David W. wrote in message <371DFD...@addr.in.sig>...
>Charlie Crawford wrote:
>> USAT officials enforce the USAT Competitive Rules. Race Directors are in
>> charge of safety.
>
>You're setting yourself up for a mess, Charlie. Handlebar plugs have
>nothing to do with competition and everything to do with safety.
>
>> USAT officials have no way of enforcing safety, without becoming involved
in
>> liability suits.
>
>Yes, but USAT could refuse to sanction races if the directors are not
>willing to ensure safety.
>
They can and they do.
>> Therefore, if we see someone riding without a helmet, our Competitive
Rules
>> dictate that we assign a penalty. Same with bar ends.
>
>Sounds like a change is needed. Helmets and plugs have nothing to do
>with competition. Therefore, USAT should not even be concerned with
>those issues, unless USAT is concerned with safety. Perhaps USAT should
>add some requirements of RD's regarding safety in order to provide USAT
>certification.
>
But they are competitive issues , is it not quicker not to stop and put on
your helmet, isn't your bike lighter without some basicc safety features
like brakes and bar plugs?
>> The Race Director has safety as his prime responsibility (hopefully).
So, the
>> transition volunteers will be yelling at competitors to fasten their
helmets,
>> slow down, etc. they also will check bikes, helmets, etc. when
>> athletes arrive in transition.
>
>But, that is not required by USAT (AFAIK), nor is it done at all USAT
>races. If that is how USAT feels, it should be required of RD's.
>
>> So, if an official cites an athlete for no bar ends (or helmet, etc.),
>> perhaps the athlete should approach the race director and complain,
>
>Why not complain to USAT about providing sanctioning to a race where the
>RD does not care about safety?
>
>You can't walk on both sides of this fence, Charlie. Either USAT wants
>safe races or it does not. Halfway is not good enough.
>
>> Again, as far as the official goes, he can only go by the book
>
>Time to change the book!!!
>
Once again you have confused "USAT" with " USAT Officials"
Brian Wagner
> You and Bruce, both. You represent USAT. If you can't do that in a
> responsible and respectful manner on RST, you should not be part of
> USAT. Responsiblity comes with your title, even though you are a
> volunteer. Brian may get out of hand in some posts, but he had some very
> good issues and concerns. I have yet to see either you or Bruce address
> that issue other than say "write USAT".
To his credit, Bruce and I had a very productive exchange via private
email, and he offered to submit any proposed rule changes I forwarded
him for consideration. Ultimately we both agreed that spot checks during
the swim of stationary bikes was out of line, and he pointed out that
when he is in charge, he requires officials to see the bike being ridden
on the course without the plugs for a DQ. While he did lose his temper
with me, my style has been known to have that effect on people, and we
have had a civil discussion since then.
As for Charlie, I never chastised him for his warning, and it was
appreciated. I don't think he should go back to lurking as he promised,
but rather should continue to participate in meaningful discussion of
what has shown itself to be a sore point with a lot of people. Nothing
good will happen if people don't talk about the problem.
hu...@my-dejanews.com
"Bruce Platt" <bpl...@hittman.com> wrote:
> By the letter of the rulebook, if you didnot wear your helmet, as an
> Official I could do nothing but give you a penalty. All issues of safety are
> the complete responsibilty of the Race Organizers. USAT Officials just
> enforce the competitive rules.
>
> Bruce
>
>
Every race I have ever been in has had volunteers at the transition exits
making sure you have your helmet on. If this unplugged bar-end issue is a
safety issue then couldn't the officials emphasize the importance of it and
have the volunteers be sure no one with unplugged bar ends goes out on the
course, or at least advise race management to make sure that they announce
the rule (along with the drafting & helmet rules)? Rules are there for a
reason but if they aren't enforced until after the potential damage is done,
well then they really aren't helping anyone. No one is going to gain an
unfair advantage by riding with unplugged bar ends but someone could
potentially get hurt in which case a DQ handed out post-race really is too
late.
There are a lot of people who sign up race day and don't have a rule book so
it seems like safety issues should be posted or announced pre-race by race
management. If someone knowingly chooses to ignore the rules then they
deserve a DQ.
Mike Bundy
Brian Wagner wrote in message <371E0682...@mr.picker.com>...
Yep -- my main point exactly -- I suspect USAT is at risk.
-- MB.
David W.
> Please read what Charlie and I have written.
I did -- several times before posting. I could not believe that either
you or Charlie could post such statements. I had a lot more respect for
both of you before this.
> We are talking about "USAT Officials" only. Do not confuse that with the
> functions of USAT and their sanctioning process.
As officials you represent USAT and the rules set by USAT. That cannot
be separated. Sanctioning is very relevant. If RD's won't adhere to
rules and safety guidelines, the USAT sanctioning should be cancelled.
> USAT is deeply concerned with safety.
Again, talk is cheap. USAT needs to prove it with a change! You may not
be able to change it as an official, but you have more influence on the
rules than I do.
Mike Tennent
>Charlie Crawford wrote:
>> Okay, now I have been chastised by Mr Wagner. I suppose I'm in good
>> company. My point here was to give fair warning. I'm quite sure i
>> have suceeded, given the surprising number of replies. I will return
>> to lurk status so that I won't clog up any more bandwidth.
>
>You and Bruce, both.
> You represent USAT. If you can't do that in a
>responsible and respectful manner on RST
David, please don't presume to speak for others on rst in telling Charlie to
stay off.
Would you care to point to ANY post at anytime in which Charlie has been
disrespectful of anyone? Search in vain, because you won't find one.
I may agree or disagree with him on an issue, but he is always a gentleman. Even
when people get in his face at a race, he stays cool.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03
Brian Wagner
> David, please don't presume to speak for others on rst in telling Charlie to
> stay off.
>
> Would you care to point to ANY post at anytime in which Charlie has been
> disrespectful of anyone? Search in vain, because you won't find one.
>
> I may agree or disagree with him on an issue, but he is always a gentleman. Even
> when people get in his face at a race, he stays cool.
As the person who Charlie's remarks were aimed at, I agree that he was
never out of line, and I don't have a problem with anything he said.
His warning was timely, and it sparked some very meaningful discussion
of the rules and how they're enforced. I learned a lot from it, and
most of what I learned from this thread came from Charlie and Bruce.
Although I disagreed with them, except for an extremely brief lapse on
Bruce's part which we have cleared up privately, Charlie and Bruce
conducted themselves better than some people I agreed with on this
thread.
Marty Carson
Brian Wagner wrote:
> No one is asking officials to expose themselves to lawsuits. I simply
> said to enforce equipment rules in a manner which gives racers the
> opportunity to correct the noncompliance, AT THEIR OWN COST, so as to
> participate. HOw hard is this for people to comprehend? Check ALL the
> bikes before the race, and if they're non-compliant, tell them to fix it
> or go home. Any other methodology only exposes you to MORE potential
> liability. If you do ANY equipment enforcement, it should be done in a
> manner that guarantees you apply it with equal rigor to ALL bikes, and
> pre-race inspections on admission to the transition area is the ONLY
> prudent way to assure this. You can';t know that you'll adequately
> cover ALL the bikes during the swim, but if you even try, you are
> implying a responsibility for seeijng that unsafe bikes don't get on the
> course. If you REALLY want to cover yourself legally, you have two
> choices - apply an equally rigorous inspection to ALL bikes in the less
> frantic atmosphere of athletes ariving before the race, when each bike
> can be individually looked over, or do no inspections or equipment
> enforcement at all. Quick spot checks during the swim or on the course
> are asking for legal trouble. By checking, you acknowledge the hazard
> and accept a role in preventing it, but you don't exercise diligence in
> acting on that acknowledgement and acceptance.
Is this guy a lawyer or what? It would certainly explain a lot of his responses.
Marty "Go ahead and sue me; make my day!" Carson
Brian Wagner
>
> Is this guy a lawyer or what? It would certainly explain a lot of his responses.
>
Bruce Platt
David W. wrote in message <371F06...@addr.in.sig>...
>Bruce Platt wrote:
>> Please read what Charlie and I have written.
>
>I did -- several times before posting. I could not believe that either
>you or Charlie could post such statements. I had a lot more respect for
>both of you before this.
>
>> We are talking about "USAT Officials" only. Do not confuse that with the
>> functions of USAT and their sanctioning process.
>
>As officials you represent USAT and the rules set by USAT. That cannot
>be separated. Sanctioning is very relevant. If RD's won't adhere to
>rules and safety guidelines, the USAT sanctioning should be cancelled.
That is 100% correct and is the stance of USAT. But it is a decision not
made by the Race Officials. You are in total agreement with us, As Officials
we follow the rules as set down by the Board of Directors, we cannot do more
than they authorize.
>
>> USAT is deeply concerned with safety.
>
>Again, talk is cheap. USAT needs to prove it with a change! You may not
>be able to change it as an official, but you have more influence on the
>rules than I do.
>
>
>David / FEY2K
>--------------------------------
>reply @ wuth - family - atlanta
>(remove spaces)
>at att dot net
What change do you want? Please spell it out and be specific. Its easy to
complain and cry for change. Atleast Charlie and I do something about it. I
personally put in several hundred hours over the past nine months alone
updating the new rulebook. And along with Charlie's help it is going to
print now and will be available on the web shortly.
I am giving you and all the others here my ear, please put forth a proposal
for any rule change you would like to see. ( Pleaswe send directly to me as
private email) And I will make sure it is carefully considered by the Safet
& Rules Committee.
So David , talk is cheap, here is your chance to have some influence...
don't drop the ball. We really do care what you want .
Bruce Platt
David W.
>>> USAT is deeply concerned with safety.
>>Again, talk is cheap. USAT needs to prove it with a change! You may not
>>be able to change it as an official, but you have more influence on the
>>rules than I do.
>What change do you want? Please spell it out and be specific.
I have in another post and in an email to an address at USAT. I will
send you a copy of the email I sent to USAT.
> Its easy to complain and cry for change.
That's why I proposed a solution on RST and to USAT.
>Atleast Charlie and I do something about it. I
>personally put in several hundred hours over the past nine months alone
>updating the new rulebook.
Yes, I am aware of that. I appreciate the time you spend on this and
hope that you can understand my postings are an effort to make a
change for the better.
>So David , talk is cheap, here is your chance to have some influence...
>don't drop the ball. We really do care what you want .
Done. Please let me know the outcome.
>Bruce Platt
>Chairman USAT Safety & Rules Committee
David / FEY2K
********************************
Tricia Richter
<7B329B5E48CB0200.B2E4CC78...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
wbru...@gate.net (Mike Tennent) wrote:
> "David W." <re...@addr.in.sig> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Crawford wrote:
> >> Okay, now I have been chastised by Mr Wagner. I suppose I'm in good
> >> company. My point here was to give fair warning. I'm quite sure i
> >> have suceeded, given the surprising number of replies. I will return
> >> to lurk status so that I won't clog up any more bandwidth.
> >
> >You and Bruce, both.
> > You represent USAT. If you can't do that in a
> >responsible and respectful manner on RST
>
> David, please don't presume to speak for others on rst in telling Charlie to
> stay off.
Hear, hear!!!
--
Tri-Baby
_
- o
' - __o - </\_
` ' - \< - __/\
/\o_ - (()) (()) - /
^^^^^^^^^^
"Real triathletes don't draft."
http://www.stanford.edu/~brooksie
*New to triathlon? Check out Hulaman's Simple TriTips:
http://www.hulaman.com/triathlon/tritips.html
DHerrema
and is, as follows;
1.0, Any triathlete with a front facial protrusion of more than 3.3 inches must
cover such protrusion with a protective ruberized spherical cover in a bright
red color.
USAT declined to add the 1.1 rule addition requiring all pointy cycling shoes
to be covered with a size 23EE black floppy overshoe.
More to follow later on this controversial decision, as the ITU also decides
to implement the rule, then declines, fearing that it can no longer distinguish
between participants and management.
Dan Herrema
Rick Denney
No, Brian, Don't Say It. Please.
Oh, hell, too late.
Rick "Two engineers 'round these parts is one (two?) too many" Denney
David W.
> "David W." <re...@addr.in.sig> wrote:
> >Charlie Crawford wrote:
> >> Okay, now I have been chastised by Mr Wagner. I suppose I'm in good
> >> company.
> >responsible and respectful manner on RST
>
> David, please don't presume to speak for others on rst in telling Charlie
> won't find one.
I have never spoken for RST, nor did I state that in my post. I speak
only for myself. I almost stayed out of this thread until I read Bruce
calling Brian an idiot for the ideas and questions he posed. Then
Charlie added a sarcastic post about being chastised by Brian. I believe
that both were inappropriate and disrespectful. It really ticked my off.
I have a lot of respect for Charlie and Bruce. They have contributed
much to RST in clarification and explanation of rules. And, they are
entitled to flame as much as anyone. However, IMHO, when a thread
involves their position with USAT, they are representing that governing
body. As such, I would have expected that they would put personal
feelings aside and listen objectively to the arguments. IMHO their
comments were innapropriate. YMMV.
Nevertheless, my responses were not any better. I let my emotions get
the best of me. My intentions were to support the need for a change and
to propose a change. Unfortunately, I let my emotions get into those
posts. So much so that Bruce missed my proposal so that I had to restate
it. Hopefully, my emotions did not come out as bad in my email to him.
I've said enough on the need for change so I won't continue here. To
Bruce and Charlie, I apologize if I offended, but please understand how
your posts were perceived to represent USAT and how they were seen as
disrespectful (at least to me). I am not asking you guys to leave RST or
stop posting.
The progression of this thread exemplifies one reason I have stayed on
RST for several years. Many of us are emotional about our sport -- our
lives. We have a passion for the sport and desire for it to continue as
best it can. Just like family, we have differences of opinion and
occasional spats. However, I believe that RST contributors have shown
that we can reconcile those differences better than many other usenet
groups. For that reason, I choose to stay and encourage others to do the
same.
David / FEY2K
--------------------------------
Brian Wagner
If it bothers you Rick, I'll be glad to let you pay for law school.
Rick Denney
<bwa...@mr.picker.com> wrote:
>Rick Denney wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:18:37 -0400, Brian Wagner
>> <bwa...@mr.picker.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Marty Carson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is this guy a lawyer or what? It would certainly explain a lot of his responses.
>> >>
>> >No, just a little ole engineer.
>>
>> No, Brian, Don't Say It. Please.
>>
>> Oh, hell, too late.
>>
>> Rick "Two engineers 'round these parts is one (two?) too many" Denney
>
>If it bothers you Rick, I'll be glad to let you pay for law school.
The world is not ready for me as a lawyer. Half the time, I'd argue
against my own client.
Rick "Or starve" Denney
Brian Wagner
No,No, No!! I'll actually go, study hard, and become a lawyer, you just
pay the tuition! <g>
Rick Denney
Me, loan *you* money? Moi? You'd never pay my interest rates.
Rick "And I *know* you don't want me to just *give* you the money"
Denney
Ron Gilcreast
>>
>>Brian said
>>No,No, No!! I'll actually go, study hard, and become a lawyer, you just
>>pay the tuition! <g>
>
>Me, loan *you* money? Moi? You'd never pay my interest rates.
>
>Rick "And I *know* you don't want me to just *give* you the money"
>Denney
No, he wants you to give *me* the money. He's just gonna make the payments .
.. .
Ron 'worth a shot' Gilcreast