post-race helmet violation
Tom Rodgers
Tom Rodgers
contestant forgets to don their helmet to ride slowly (5-10mph, almost
coasting) for 20-30 meters in the parking lot 90 minutes AFTER completing an
Olympic distance race, and after the bike course has been officially closed.
After realizing they left their helmet back at the bike racks, they
immediately dismounted and return to pick up the helmet, spending about 10
seconds on the bike without a helmet. No other mounted cyclists or for that
matter walkers were nearby and no accident occurred.
I have heard warnings about a potential time penalty for contestants WARMING
UP without a helmet, on the bike course with other riders warming up, but
can nothing in the rules about a post-race "foul." When do the rules of a
race finally expire? How long can penalties continue after a race is
completed? I really do believe in wearing a helmet at all times, but how
long is it fair to penalize a contestant for inadvertent errors after a
race?
Tom Ruta
Covered in Rule 3.3 (a) You must abide by the rule during an event
OR while at the event site.
Tom
Andrew F. Halperin
violation. Would they actually do this? If it states "race site",
then I finish the race, qualify, pick up my slot the next day, then
a race official sees me riding around on my bike with my number still
on the bike and dq's me from the race (helmet violation) the previous
day?
I doubt this would ever be done, but is it within the rules? Geeez!
-Andrew
Boulder, CO
Tom Ruta
<aha...@cisco.com> wrote:
...
>
>I doubt this would ever be done, but is it within the rules? Geeez!
>
Good question - I don't know if the original poster was asking a
hypothetical Q or not. It would certainly strike me as unfair. The
race is over, so it's over.
Tom
HaroldBuck
Yea, but are they going to retro-actively cite you for a post race
violation. Would they actually do this? If it states "race site",
then I finish the race, qualify, pick up my slot the next day, then
a race official sees me riding around on my bike with my number still
on the bike and dq's me from the race (helmet violation) the previous
day?
>>
The next day it is no longer the "race site," IMHO.
-Harold
Andrew F. Halperin
cheer on the end of the finishers. No helmet. Are you dq'd from the
race that you finished 6 hours earlier? When does the race site
finish being the race site?
I know this may be academic but I'm just trying to see what the
limits of the USAT rules are.
-Andrew
Boulder, CO
HaroldBuck wrote:
Brian Wagner
>
> Covered in Rule 3.3 (a) You must abide by the rule during an event
> OR while at the event site.
How long does it remain the event site? Usually, I get involved in a
conversation with someone while enjoying the post race treats, and get
so caught up in a discussion that I lose track of time (surprise,
surprise, eh?) so that when I retrieve my bike, it's from the ground
where the volunteers placed it when they dismantled the racks. If I
have a friend take my bike to the car, have I violated the outside
assistance rule?
Brian Wagner
What about at Wildflower, where it's a two day event? Just when does a
racer become a 'civilian?'
Think about the Chucky/beer incident. How many enjoy a cold one after
the race?
HaroldBuck
the race?
>><BR><BR>
Huh?
-Harold
Cathy Corning
at 15 mph or so, weaving through huge crowds of spectators and
pedestrians, without helmets, with their gear bags dangling
precipitously close to their front spokes.
I still can't imagine how anyone could forget to wear their helmet,
particularly in this situation where anyone's dog could twitch the
wrong way on the end of the leash, and the bike could swerve into the
baby carriage, and then topple unceremoniously into the tyke's little
red wagon which happens at the moment to be carrying a stinky diaper.
But to answer your question on how the USAT rules are applied, they
really apply to the race itself. There are no instances of the
referees sitting out in the parking lot giving out time penalties to
people who "forget" to wear their helmet while riding their gear to
their car. I've never heard of pre-race penalties, either, maybe one
of the officials on the list can comment.
For those who possess it, common sense should prevail.
Cathy
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:33:04 GMT, "Tom Rodgers" <t...@svi.net> wrote:
Tom Rodgers
Ys, this really happened recently and it was a nasty scene. The bike course
had been closed, and the race director chased down the contestant into the
parking lot. The contestant had been injured during the race, a bike crash
(wearing helmet of course), but managed to finish legally and then sought
medical aid. Waiting another 90 minutes to retrieve his bike until the bike
course was officially "closed" in this Olympic distance race, he forget his
helmet, left back on the bike rack in fact. He was groggy and just had
forgotten, and then dismounted after about 20-30 meters realizing he had
forgot the helmet. It was raining all day and hard to stop quickly. By then,
however, the Race director (not a referee), told him he was disqualified and
banned from all future local races, never even giving him a chance to
apologize.
This has been attempted to be resolved quietly and politely, since the
people involved were friends, but if not it may become an official USAT
rules appeal.
This from Charlie Crawford, head honcho for all USAT referees:
Tom,
Prior to the start of the race and after the race is over, it is
inappropriate to penalize anyone (with some exceptions - like
unsportsmanlike conduct, or a post race discovery of course cutting). What
they do priror to the start of the race or when they go home is not our
business. We enforce the Competitive Rules in competition. I would
certainly not give a penalty, or even say anything to the individual you
described. We are not their mother.
-Charlie
"Tom Ruta" <ru...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:n2chou4goavdddtn5...@4ax.com...
Tom Ruta
...
>however, the Race director (not a referee), told him he was disqualified and
>banned from all future local races, never even giving him a chance to
>apologize.
Maybe the race director is just an ass?
Tom
Brian Wagner
>
> Keep trying to respond since I started the topic:
>
> Ys, this really happened recently and it was a nasty scene. The bike course
> had been closed, and the race director chased down the contestant into the
> parking lot. The contestant had been injured during the race, a bike crash
> (wearing helmet of course), but managed to finish legally and then sought
> medical aid. Waiting another 90 minutes to retrieve his bike until the bike
> course was officially "closed" in this Olympic distance race, he forget his
> helmet, left back on the bike rack in fact. He was groggy and just had
> forgotten, and then dismounted after about 20-30 meters realizing he had
> forgot the helmet. It was raining all day and hard to stop quickly. By then,
> however, the Race director (not a referee), told him he was disqualified and
> banned from all future local races, never even giving him a chance to
> apologize.
Please name the race director. This conduct is inexcusable, and as a
consumer, I want to know which vendors engage in it.
> This has been attempted to be resolved quietly and politely, since the
> people involved were friends, but if not it may become an official USAT
> rules appeal.
Do you mean the RD and the penalized person were friends? Some friend.
Who needs enemies?
Brian Wagner
Well, that much is obvious.
JJ Waguespack
sanction)
JJ
Brian Wagner
>
> I have seen competitors either pre-race or post-race riding kamikaze
> at 15 mph or so, weaving through huge crowds of spectators and
> pedestrians, without helmets, with their gear bags dangling
> precipitously close to their front spokes.
>
> I still can't imagine how anyone could forget to wear their helmet,
> particularly in this situation where anyone's dog could twitch the
> wrong way on the end of the leash, and the bike could swerve into the
> baby carriage,
Under such circumstances, given our litigous society, it might be better
not to be wearing a helmet, because when the baby's parents are through
with the rider, he will wish he suffered a fatal head injury.
Brian Wagner
a beer, in a glass bottle, from a spectator near the end of the run, and
was not only DQ'd, but banned. It was the subject of some controversy
here last year.
jkmsg
Chucky/beer- It's a tri thing...you wouldn't understand? But I'll
try.
A "relatively" well known incident regarding Chuck Veylupek (aka,
Chucky V.), whom (if my memory is correct and to make it short) had a
beer during the run portion of the Hawaii IM (99?) Triathlon...and,
was disqualified and band from the Hawaiian IM (only) for the
following year.
Joe
Phil Holman
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3D88E707...@cle.philips.com...
Yes aa nd there is the intent of the rule right there. This is nothing to do
with a unfair
advantage it's solely about perceived safety. The idea is to make it
inexcusable
not to be wearing a helmet anytime one is on their bike before, during or
after
the race. If safety is the main objective then it must have teeth at all
times.
This is my opinion of the intent of this rule. Whether I agree with it is a
different matter. The point of it being unfair if applied after the event is
losing sight of the whole point of the rule. i.e the message should not be
that
safety only matters before or during the race. Sure, one can find individual
circumstances that appear to be unfair but this is what happens in real
life.
Phil Holman
Frank
race buffet one year, and being banned for some period (life?) from future
Ironman events......If the transgression was after the race, I wonder if he
was retroactively DQ'd.
Interesting question. If he was abusive to volunteers, should he have been
DQ'd from a race he had already completed?
"HaroldBuck" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918131448...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>d
Tom Rodgers
jurisdiction after the race is completed, anymore than they can penalize
people for not wearing their seat belt while driving their car away from the
course. Of course, I believe in helmets and safety, but you must at some
point limit "Competitive Rules" to the actual competition, otherwise you
become yet another police force in the town.
This decision will soon be under appeal. Here's what Charlie said:
Tom,
Prior to the start of the race and after the race is over, it is
inappropriate to penalize anyone (with some exceptions - like
unsportsmanlike conduct, or a post race discovery of course cutting). What
they do priror to the start of the race or when they go home is not our
business. We enforce the Competitive Rules in competition. I would
certainly not give a penalty, or even say anything to the individual you
described. We are not their mother.
-Charlie
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:Fcai9.1366$k27.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Armin
> I recall a Danish (?) age-grouper at IMH pitching a fit at a pre or
> post race buffet one year, and being banned for some period (life?)
> from future Ironman events......If the transgression was after the
> race, I wonder if he was retroactively DQ'd.
>
> Interesting question. If he was abusive to volunteers, should he
> have been DQ'd from a race he had already completed?
No, but he should be banned from future races.
Armin
Brian Wagner
>
> From what I recall that was during the race.(not that I agreed with the
> sanction)
>
crossed the finish line?
Brian Wagner
>
> Yes aa nd there is the intent of the rule right there.
And thus you completely miss my point that there are circumstances where
one may wish NOT to be safe.
> This is nothing to do
> with a unfair
> advantage it's solely about perceived safety. The idea is to make it
> inexcusable not to be wearing a helmet anytime one is on their bike before, during or
> after
> the race. If safety is the main objective then it must have teeth at all
> times.
Thank you, Big Brother. Then USAT officials should stalk our
neighborhoods with video cameras, making sure we don't even ride from
the garage to the mailbox without a helmet. The intent of the rule is
to make the RACE safe. The RD, USAT, etc. is not my mother, father, or
nanny. I'm a grownup; and I'm responsible for my own life, thank you.
Do I wear a helmet? Heck, yes, but it's MY decision when I'm not
racing.
> This is my opinion of the intent of this rule.
It's not a question of the intent of the rule; it's a question of the
proper extent of the RD's authority.
So the RD cares about your safety - that's touching. So, you won't mind
if the RD comes into your bedroom tonight to make sure you're using a
condom, right? After all, it's all in the name of safety. It's for
your own good.
> Whether I agree with it is a
> different matter. The point of it being unfair if applied after the event is
> losing sight of the whole point of the rule. i.e the message should not be
> that safety only matters before or during the race.
It's not about the intent, or the message. The purpose of the rules is
not to send a message, nor to make us better people, because neither is
the proper role of the RD or the sanctioning body.
Personally, I'm against the helmet rule on the race course - it
interferes with natural selection; if someone is too stupid to wear it,
then the sooner we get 'em out of the gene pool, the better.
Brian Wagner
>
> As Charlie Crawford (head of ALL USAT referees indicated, referees have no
> jurisdiction after the race is completed, anymore than they can penalize
> people for not wearing their seat belt while driving their car away from the
> course. Of course, I believe in helmets and safety, but you must at some
> point limit "Competitive Rules" to the actual competition, otherwise you
> become yet another police force in the town.
>
> This decision will soon be under appeal. Here's what Charlie said:
> Prior to the start of the race and after the race is over, it is
> inappropriate to penalize anyone (with some exceptions - like
> unsportsmanlike conduct, or a post race discovery of course cutting). What
> they do priror to the start of the race or when they go home is not our
> business. We enforce the Competitive Rules in competition. I would
> certainly not give a penalty, or even say anything to the individual you
> described. We are not their mother.
>
Tom and Charlie get it. Phil doesn't.
Brian Wagner
>
> This is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard in triathlon. Imagine
> the potential for revisionist history - you see last year's winner
> doing something near a race course a year after the race ends - report
> him and move up a place in the final standings!
Felix Derzinsky would be so proud.
Tom Ruta
Maybe the RD in question wants a statue of himself erected at the race
site?
Tom
JJ Waguespack
accused of entrapment. Hand them a beer and have another guy with a pad
taking down race numbers as soon as it touches their lips.
JJ
TRIathlt B
and on the course!
B.Oliver
TRIathlt B
B.Oliver
TRIathlt B
supremacy between him and Joe Bonness. He has already thrown out the challenge!
B.Oliver
Brian Wagner
They'll only tear it down.
Tom Rodgers
since he was my friend in the sport and has contributed greatly within the
region. We meet often, and I considered he and his wife my friends, and my
wife had met them. Like him, I believe in safety and the rules, but these
only have meaning if fairly and reasonably applied. I have tried to give him
some time to cool off and make a reasonable response, but that not
forthcoming, and with the concordance of folks like Charlie Crawford, I am
going to appeal the decision.
Actually, I should have protested the decision to the head referee at the
time it happened, but I was not even allowed to speak with her to inquire
about the rule. I was just told to leave and never come back. I was not loud
or abusive--in fact, after the crash earlier I was too fatigued and dizzy to
make much of an argument. That's why I had forgotten my helmet in the first
place. You are allowed to appeal a failed protest, but since I could not
lodge one, I am investigating how to proceed. I think I will receive solid
support from board persons within the region, since I have a good reputation
as a fair competitor and contributor to the sport.
I am taking this matter to USAT on principle, not as a matter of
personality. Frankly, I'm not that interested in short-course regional
placings or rankings, concentrating on Kona and ultradistance, I'm headed
back there again this year. I do not think contestants should be be abused
or disqualified just because the race director gets pissed off and looses
his temper. Cautioning people to be safe is okay, but giving the death
penalty for a seat-belt violation is going a bit too far.
I do not want to hurt anyone's reputation, just salvage my own. The race
results don't even show me as DQ'd or why. It just looks like I never even
entered the race, and that's not fair. I worked very hard to finish
honorably in fourth place in 40-44 age-group despite a bike crash, a lot of
blood, and a lot of swelling, on a horribly wet and miserable day.
TRIathlt B
B.Oliver
JJ Waguespack
been the larger issue. I know that USAT has a rule regarding glass in
transition and it probably extends to the entire course.
JJ
Phil Holman
> As Charlie Crawford (head of ALL USAT referees indicated, referees have no
> jurisdiction after the race is completed, anymore than they can penalize
> people for not wearing their seat belt while driving their car away from the
> course. Of course, I believe in helmets and safety, but you must at some
> point limit "Competitive Rules" to the actual competition, otherwise you
> become yet another police force in the town.
>
> This decision will soon be under appeal. Here's what Charlie said:
>
>
> Tom,
>
> Prior to the start of the race and after the race is over, it is
> inappropriate to penalize anyone (with some exceptions - like
> unsportsmanlike conduct, or a post race discovery of course cutting). What
> they do priror to the start of the race or when they go home is not our
> business. We enforce the Competitive Rules in competition. I would
> certainly not give a penalty, or even say anything to the individual you
> described. We are not their mother.
>
> -Charlie
So what does Rule 3.3 (a) etc. say.
I must admit to not knowing myself but I hope this is consistent with
what Charlie is saying. If not, something needs to change.
Phil Holman
HaroldBuck
Personally, I'm against the helmet rule on the race course - it
interferes with natural selection; if someone is too stupid to wear it,
then the sooner we get 'em out of the gene pool, the better.
>>
I'd agree with you, provided the helmetless bikers be required to put up a bond
to cover medical expenses should they suffer a head injury. This is also me
feeling about motorcyclists who ride without helmets: they should be ticketed
for each offense unless they have a bond to cover medical expenses.
Why? Because every time one of these helmetless wonders gets severely injured,
society pays the cost of their stupidity, either through increased insurance
rates or increased taxes.
-Harold
Jason O'Rourke
>I'd agree with you, provided the helmetless bikers be required to put up a bond
>to cover medical expenses should they suffer a head injury. This is also me
>feeling about motorcyclists who ride without helmets: they should be ticketed
>for each offense unless they have a bond to cover medical expenses.
>
>Why? Because every time one of these helmetless wonders gets severely injured,
>society pays the cost of their stupidity, either through increased insurance
>rates or increased taxes.
oh, cry me a river. Get a grip already.
You put up with so many more stupid and costly actions to single these two out.
Did you know that unhelmeted riders cost the state less? They are somewhat
more likely to be dead on the scene. That's cheap.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Brian Wagner
>
> I'd agree with you, provided the helmetless bikers be required to put up a bond
> to cover medical expenses should they suffer a head injury. This is also me
> feeling about motorcyclists who ride without helmets: they should be ticketed
> for each offense unless they have a bond to cover medical expenses.
Those who can afford to participate in triathlon will also have health
insurance.
It's not that popular in the projects.
> Why? Because every time one of these helmetless wonders gets severely injured,
> society pays the cost of their stupidity, either through increased insurance
> rates or increased taxes.
Sure, but before you get to worked up, consider all the non-contributors
to society we pay for the bad decisions of everyday. Now, when someone
who has a job and pays taxes screws up, you're suddenly up in arms?
Your idea is fine, provided we first make all the crack whores on
welfare put up a bond to pay for their rehab and STD treatment, to say
nothing of the expenses for the resulting children born pre-addicted and
HIV positive.
Brian Wagner
>
> I have tried NOT to denigrate the personality of the director involved,
You haven't done a good job. You've only hidden his identity, which
wouldn't be hard to figure out, given the when you're posting and your
geographic region. Let's face it, you can't do anything to his
reputation that his own conduct hasn't done at this point.
> since he was my friend in the sport and has contributed greatly within the
> region. We meet often, and I considered he and his wife my friends, and my
> wife had met them. Like him, I believe in safety and the rules, but these
> only have meaning if fairly and reasonably applied. I have tried to give him
> some time to cool off and make a reasonable response, but that not
> forthcoming, and with the concordance of folks like Charlie Crawford, I am
> going to appeal the decision.
>
> Actually, I should have protested the decision to the head referee at the
> time it happened, but I was not even allowed to speak with her to inquire
> about the rule. I was just told to leave and never come back.
And yet you call him your friend? Want some bad business advice? Write
a book on how to select friends.
> I was not loud or abusive
And yet your 'friend' treated you thus?
> You are allowed to appeal a failed protest, but since I could not
> lodge one, I am investigating how to proceed. I think I will receive solid
> support from board persons within the region, since I have a good reputation
> as a fair competitor and contributor to the sport.
And yet you'd risk that reputation to preserve this idiot's reputation?
Make no mistake, if you pursue this, his only defense will be to attack
your integrity, and it will become you or him.
> I am taking this matter to USAT on principle, not as a matter of
> personality.
On principle, we, as tri-consumers, should know who this vendor is.
> I do not think contestants should be be abused
> or disqualified just because the race director gets pissed off and looses
> his temper.
I don't think such an individual should be a race director.
> I do not want to hurt anyone's reputation, just salvage my own.
You don't have a choice - the conduct you've already alleged makes it a
zero sum game.
> The race
> results don't even show me as DQ'd or why. It just looks like I never even
> entered the race, and that's not fair. I worked very hard to finish
> honorably in fourth place in 40-44 age-group despite a bike crash, a lot of
> blood, and a lot of swelling, on a horribly wet and miserable day.
Let's see, where was it raining this weekend that a short course tri was
held near you, but you don't show up in the results?
I admit it, Tom, I'm lazy. Why not just tell us the name? You KNOW you
can be a lot more gentle about it than I might if I found it on my own.
Phil Holman
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> > Yes and there is the intent of the rule right there.
>
> And thus you completely miss my point that there are circumstances where
> one may wish NOT to be safe.
Of course I can only speak for myself but I consider this a risk of being
DQd. If caught I would accept the consequences. In original poster's case I
see
nothing wrong with appealing the decision. Even that appears to generate
more
controversy over the rules.
Having now read the rules I must say that they are not well written.
b) Use of Helmet. The helmet must be properly placed on the head and
fastened before
the participant first mounts the bicycle, at all times when the participant
is on the bicycle,
and must not be unfastened or removed unless the participant has dismounted.
Any violation
of this Section 5.9A(b) shall result in disqualification.
>
> > This is nothing to do
> > with a unfair advantage it's solely about perceived safety. The idea is
to make it
> > inexcusable not to be wearing a helmet anytime one is on their bike
before, during or
> > after the race. If safety is the main objective then it must have teeth
at all times.
>
> Thank you, Big Brother.
You accuse me of something like that yet your pursuit of this race director
is a lot
closer to it.
These are the rules and there is nothing in them about applying only to the
RACE.
I see there are more rules about protests, hearings and appeals than
anything else.
I wonder why?
>Then USAT officials should stalk our
> neighborhoods with video cameras, making sure we don't even ride from
> the garage to the mailbox without a helmet.
> interferes with natural selection; if someone is too stupid to wear it,
> then the sooner we get 'em out of the gene pool, the better.
You could always work at getting the rule revised.
What a novel idea.
Phil Holman
Tom Rodgers
1. I believe in wearing a helmet whenever on the bike. The reason I did not
have one on for 10 seconds while going about 5-10mph was that I had been in
an injury and just had forgotten it. The moment I realized it was not on my
head, I immediately dismounted.
2. I believe the rules should be enforced, especially for safety.
3. The "Competitive Rules" (the only rules USAT has or has jurisdiction
over) apply to the competition, and not to periods before or after the race.
Only unsportsmanlike conduct or post-race discovery of course cutting or
misidentification can be cited after the race (this from USAT head honcho
Charlie Crawford).
4. If USAT wants to make wearing a helmet before and after the race
mandatory, then they need to explicitly make this a rule and state it in the
rules. Maybe we should just not be able to mount our bikes at all, require
walking it back to the car until a mile or more away from the transition
area--I wish I had done this on the day in question. I would not oppose such
a rule if clearly stated (as are the chin-strap and bar-end plug rules which
lead to disqualification) and routinely enforced. Just because something is
a "good idea" does not make it an existing rule. We do not arrest people or
charge them with a crime because they broke a law that does not yet exist
(ex post facto laws were forbidden in the US Constitution), or one we think
should exist. We can only accuse people for laws or rules that already
exist. I have never heard of anyone else ever being cited for not wearing a
helmet on the way to the parking 90 minutes after finishing, after the bike
course was officially closed and cars and pedestrians were freely upon it.
This is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than throwing a fit, unsportsmanlike conduct,
punching a referee, etc. These are acts of violence (verbal or physical) and
should be handled for what they are: assaults upon the sport itself.
5. I do not think it's wise for race directors to "make up their own rules"
not sanctioned or published by USAT, or if they do or can have "local
rules," that these be clearly stated in writing and approved by USAT for
that particular race. This was certainly NOT the case with the post-helmet
so-called "violation."
Brian Wagner
>
> 4. If USAT wants to make wearing a helmet before and after the race
> mandatory, then they need to explicitly make this a rule and state it in the
> rules. Maybe we should just not be able to mount our bikes at all, require
> walking it back to the car until a mile or more away from the transition
> area--I wish I had done this on the day in question.
Maybe they should come into our homes and inspect our stationary
trainers, too, eh?
Gimme a break. I already have a mother, I don't need USAT as a
surrogate.
> I would not oppose such
> a rule if clearly stated (as are the chin-strap and bar-end plug rules which
> lead to disqualification) and routinely enforced.
I feel sorry for you, if you would let a race santioning body take over
your life like that.
When you're not racing, it's your life.
> Just because something is a "good idea" does not make it an existing rule.
Then why suggest that it should be?
Brian Wagner
>
> Of course I can only speak for myself but I consider this a risk of being
> DQd. If caught I would accept the consequences.
Some of us do not share your willingness to let a mere sanctioning body
for one of our recreational activities govern our entire lives.
> Having now read the rules I must say that they are not well written.
>
> b) Use of Helmet. The helmet must be properly placed on the head and
> fastened before
> the participant first mounts the bicycle, at all times when the participant
> is on the bicycle,
> and must not be unfastened or removed unless the participant has dismounted.
> Any violation
> of this Section 5.9A(b) shall result in disqualification.
What's not well written? It's implicit that all the rules apply to
participation in sanctioned races, and only to such participation.
> You accuse me of something like that yet your pursuit of this race director
> is a lot closer to it.
Hardly. It's clear you don't even begin to comprehend the concept
behind the remark, but that's not surprising, given your favorable
stance on letting a race director become the totalitarian dictator of
your non-racing life.
> These are the rules and there is nothing in them about applying only to the
> RACE.
Um, do they apply to those not in the race?
Do they apply to what you do at home?
Hmmmmm. No? Could that be because it's implicit that race rules only
apply to a race?
> I see there are more rules about protests, hearings and appeals than
> anything else.
> I wonder why?
Could be because of the known existence of jerks like the RD we're
discussing.
> You could always work at getting the rule revised.
The rule doesn't need revision, the RD does. Perhaps you've missed the
multiple copies of Charlie's response that have been posted.
HaroldBuck
b) Use of Helmet. The helmet must be properly placed on the head and
fastened before
the participant first mounts the bicycle, at all times when the participant
is on the bicycle,
and must not be unfastened or removed unless the participant has dismounted.
Any violation
of this Section 5.9A(b) shall result in disqualification.
>>
Do they define "dismounted"? At may last race it was stinkin' hot, so I pulled
over to the side of the road, unclipped both feet, took of my helmet while
straddling the top tube, and poured some water over my head to help cool off.
Did I technically need to step over the top tube, or was I okay?
-Harold
Rick Loggins
updated as such. Have a nice day.
HaroldBuck <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020920131415...@mb-md.aol.com...
Charlie Crawford
You were not ok. When you are straddled over your top tube, you are
mounted.
By the way, the quoted Section 5.9A(b), above, is the Elite rule.
The age group rule is:
5.9(b) Chin Strap Violations. The helmet must be fastened before the
participant first mounts the bicycle, at all times when the
participant is on the bicycle, and must not be unfastened until the
participant has dismounted. Any violation of this Section 5.9(b) which
occurs while the participant is in the transition area shall result in
a variable time penalty. Any other violation of this Section shall
result in disqualification.
Phil Holman
"Charlie Crawford" <cra...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3d8b690...@news.gte.net...
Even in this rule it is not clear if this applies only to the RACE.
How does a RD report an incident and affect the outcome of the
official result?
Phil Holman
Tom Rodgers
don't want to jump the gun on this. I am turning a formal protest to the
USAT-SMW regional President today or Monday, copying some of the regional
referees. The President is someone I know, he raced that day, and I will
follow his guidance about how to proceed, but according the rules I should
have protested within 60 minutes after finishing the race. Of course, the
penalty was issued (or at least I was told I was disqualified and "banned
for life" from future local races) 90 minutes after I had finished, and
after the bike course was closed. I was steadfastly refused ANY access to
the head referee, not even to protest or inquire about the rules or the
penalty--and I was polite about this. I was told to leave immediately by the
RD and his wife (also a USAT official but not one for this race). I do not
know what the role was of ANY official working the race, though I guess the
RD just told them I was disqualified, and they complied with question. I
actually thought it just might be a temporary temper-outburst by the RD and
might not even be filed, but the results look as if I never even registered.
No mention of DQ or penalty, as one might see for time-penalties, etc.
I do not want to air all of this here in a public newserver, but allow the
normal process of USAT conflict resolution to proceed. Charlie has already
stated his opinion about post-race penalties, but I don't want to burden him
further at this point. He will probably be consulted by the proper USAT
authorties when a written, formal protest (or perhaps appeal) is filed.
I don't know if this even qualifies as an "appeal" under the rules, since
you can only appeal a declined protest, and I was denied the right to
officially protest.
Again, my goal is not to denigrate individual personalities, but to see the
rules fairly applied, or not applied if they have no jurisdiction in the
matter. It is a matter of personal honor since I have never been
disqualified for anything in any sport in my life, and nowhere have I worked
harder at solid integrity and garnering respect than within triathlon.
The more we say here, the more likely this will become even less pleasant
than it already is for me and others. Better to handle it through official
channels, and once that process is completed, release the results.
Jason O'Rourke
>>Do they define "dismounted"? At may last race it was stinkin' hot, so I pulled
>>over to the side of the road, unclipped both feet, took of my helmet while
>>straddling the top tube, and poured some water over my head to help cool off.
>>Did I technically need to step over the top tube, or was I okay?
>
>You were not ok. When you are straddled over your top tube, you are
>mounted.
>5.9(b) Chin Strap Violations. The helmet must be fastened before the
>participant first mounts the bicycle, at all times when the
>participant is on the bicycle, and must not be unfastened until the
>participant has dismounted. Any violation of this Section 5.9(b) which
>occurs while the participant is in the transition area shall result in
>a variable time penalty. Any other violation of this Section shall
>result in disqualification.
So, Charlie, given what he wanted to do, is it sufficient to dismount,
or does 5.9b mean that the helmet must stay on until he returns to rack
the bike in transition? Should he just have poured water through the
cracks in the helmet?
(I suspect that 49 times out of 50, one could get away with this
infraction, but best to know)
Brian Wagner
>
> Even in this rule it is not clear if this applies only to the RACE.
during a baseball game.
You can swim with fins at the same beach after a triathlon is over.
Hockey players are free to fight in a bar after the game.
The "Go to jail" card has no meaning if you are not actually playing
Monopoly.
You don't have to phrase everything in the form of a question when Alex
Trebek is asking you about your hobbies after the commercial break.
When carrying a basketball home from the gym, one does not need to
dribble it to avoid a call for traveling. Off the court, the NBA cannot
stop Dennis Rodman from wearing a dress. How difficult is this to
comprehend?
Armin
> Hockey players are free to fight in a bar after the game.
Well, actually most of the stuff hockey player get away with during a game
would result in assault charges if done in a bar... but you point is well
made.
;-)
Armin
Armin
> game.
>
> Tom
True, but Marty McSorley is the only NHL player that comes to mind. I'm also
aware of a few incidents in junior hockey games that led to charges being
laid.
However I can't think of an incident where a player got a *game* penalty for
something he did in the bar after the game, which would be analogous to
getting a post-race helmet violation.
Armin
Jason O'Rourke
>However I can't think of an incident where a player got a *game* penalty for
>something he did in the bar after the game, which would be analogous to
>getting a post-race helmet violation.
Our favorite redneck in Atlanta got a suspension for mere remarks made
to a magazine. I'm trying to recall if any football players have been
suspended for their various felonies, or if it was just a given.
Spreewell did get booted for choking his own coach, though the penalties were
later cut down.
Tom Henderson
> You put up with so many more stupid and costly actions to single these two out.
> Did you know that unhelmeted riders cost the state less? They are somewhat
> more likely to be dead on the scene. That's cheap.
>
Not to mention the great things it's doing for replacement organ
availability!
Phil Holman
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> > Even in this rule it is not clear if this applies only to the RACE.
>
> comprehend?
Obviously a lot more complicated than the other sports you mention.
Do you have all of the facts Brian, for example do you know if anything
from the rule below was in effect. This RD obviously thought he was
empowered to act the way he did. I'm not saying he was right but I'm not
jumping to any conclusions.
1.4 Rules Exceptions and Additions. For any particular event, a race
director may request from USA Triathlon a specific exception or addition to
these Rules. Any such request should be made with the consideration of the
participant's safety as the highest priority. All requests for Rule changes
must be made in writing. All exceptions or additions to these Rules must be
expressly approved in writing by the Executive Director of USA Triathlon and
must be announced to all participants prior to the event.
I'm glad that Tom is taking a sensible approach in getting this
resolved. Whatever you think of RDs, I'm not up for dissing a
single one without examining all of the facts.
Phil Holman
Tom Rodgers
like the "Local Rules" of Golf (a very obsessive sport about rules, even
more so than triathlon), these rules must be published in writing (they are
usually in the score card or course map) and approved by a rules committee.
The RD in question is VERY detailed about stating all the rules, both in
flyers with the race packet, and firmly via voice before every race. And he
is very explicit about enforcing those rules. Nowhere has there ever been
anything in his race packet about the "post-race helmet rule," nor have I
heard him announced it before the race. In fact, when I retrieved my bike
and left the transition (after the bike course had been officially closed,
the last rider in), the two officials who stand there and make sure your
helmet is on and chin-strap fastened watched me mount the bike and pedal
away without saying a word. It was only about five seconds later that
someone standing 30 meters to the left by the cars said anything. I'm sure
these two officials would NOT have let me leave without a fight if they
thought this was a rule at this point, since I hear them reminding people
regularly during the race.
Again, if it's a rule, tell us in advance, write it down, and make sure it
is uniformly enforced. Certainly the chin-strap rule is enforced this way
during a race, and so is the "plug the aerobar ends" rules, which are
regularly inspected by officials before the race. Myself and others WANT to
obey the rules, but we most know it's a rule and going to be observed before
we can be held accountable.
Don't crucify a single competitor just because you are pissed off at him,
and he did not even realize he had left his helmet back in the transition
area AFTER THE BIKE COURSE WAS OFFICIALLY CLOSED.
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:Ok6j9.7030$k27.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Charlie Crawford
O'Rourke) wrote:
>So, Charlie, given what he wanted to do, is it sufficient to dismount,
>or does 5.9b mean that the helmet must stay on until he returns to rack
>the bike in transition? Should he just have poured water through the
>cracks in the helmet?
Once dismounted, the helmet may be removed.
-Charlie
HaroldBuck
I guess my real problem is that there are laws in my state requiring me to wear
a seatbelt (which I'd do anyway) but no laws requiring helmet use. It just
doesn't make sense to me to legislate safety rules in one case but not the
other.
(And I'd be perfectly happy to let people ride around without seatbelts if
they'd be willing to put up a bond to cover medical costs as well.)
-Harold
Jason O'Rourke
>>Did you know that unhelmeted riders cost the state less? They are >somewhat
>>more likely to be dead on the scene. That's cheap.
I think you should answer to this part, Harold. Otherwise, you sound a bit
petty going after bikers who have a higher risk acceptance than you, even
though it doesn't cost you anything. Meanwhile, you ignore the oafs that
are costing you serious money.
>I guess my real problem is that there are laws in my state requiring me to wear
>a seatbelt (which I'd do anyway) but no laws requiring helmet use. It just
>doesn't make sense to me to legislate safety rules in one case but not the
>other.
>
>(And I'd be perfectly happy to let people ride around without seatbelts if
>they'd be willing to put up a bond to cover medical costs as well.)
My state requires both. There is a difference between the two, btw. After
a car collision, the car is still moving, and with an automatic, still under
considerable power. An unbelted driver is in poor position to maintain
control and stop the vehicle. The equilivent issue for the motorcyclist
is eye protection. You don't need to helmet to have goggles on.
Armin
... and in none of the examples you cite was the outcome of a completed
competition changed because of somehing that was done AFTER the end of the
competition.
Armin
Brian Wagner
>
> I guess my real problem is that there are laws in my state requiring me to wear
> a seatbelt (which I'd do anyway) but no laws requiring helmet use. It just
> doesn't make sense to me to legislate safety rules in one case but not the
> other.
The AMA has better lobbyists than the AAA.
Ohio's helmet law was knocked down under the 14th Amendment.
Brian Wagner
>
> The more we say here, the more likely this will become even less pleasant
> than it already is for me and others. Better to handle it through official
> channels, and once that process is completed, release the results.
Too late. You done rubbed the lamp, now you gotta deal with the djinni.
Jason O'Rourke
>... and in none of the examples you cite was the outcome of a completed
>competition changed because of somehing that was done AFTER the end of the
>competition.
Hell, you can get 5 downs in a football gain and still keep the TD.
Even known blown plays are a given - in a team sport your actions are
based on the prior events and time remaining, so it is inappropriate to
undo a play in the middle.
Brian Wagner
>
> Obviously a lot more complicated than the other sports you mention.
No, it's not. It's quite simple - the rules exist to facilitate
participation in the sport.
They have no application to those not participating in the sport. They
do not bind spectators, bystanders, or the guy who picks up the trash
afterward. USAT, and the RD, have no authority over the lives of anyone
not racing, any more than your high school football coach can tell his
players who to take to the prom.
> Do you have all of the facts Brian,
I have enough. The race was LONG over. Tom was no longer racing. He
had entered that part of his life that was not the RD's business, you
know, the part where he's not racing.
> for example do you know if anything from the rule below was in effect.
That rule has no bearing. USAT has no power to grant the RD authority
beyond governing his race. The RD cannot, by petitioning USAT, gain
authority to ban me from eating at Burger King after the race, because
such authority is not USAT's to grant. USAT, and the RD, do not own
someone just because they, at some point in their lives, took part in a
triathlon. It's called the 13th Amendment - go look it up.
> This RD obviously thought he was empowered to act the way he did.
He thought? What with? He's a hotheaded moron. Charles Manson thought
he was empowered to act the way he did, too. Maybe the RD was listening
to the White Album a little too much?
> I'm not saying he was right but I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
Sure you are. You already said so. Because it's all about safety,
you're fully endorsing this paternalistic power grab. Safety is a
little red flag before a bull to you, like that other nannystate
catchall phrase, "it's for the children." Just like all the other
whale-saving, fiber-munching paternalist, statist safety nazi's, you
don't feel anyone has any right to make a decision for themself when
safety is involved.
> 1.4 Rules Exceptions and Additions. For any particular event,
Please note "For any particular event," THE EVENT WAS **OVER**
HaroldBuck
> 1.4 Rules Exceptions and Additions. For any particular event,
Please note "For any particular event," THE EVENT WAS **OVER**
>>
He's repeatedly said " The bike course was closed." That leads me to believe
that there were still runners on the course and that the race was *not* over,
since otherwise he'd just say "The course was closed" or "The race was over."
You can argue about whether the difference matters, but I can envision the
rules being written in a way that make the distinction important. [E.g.,
competitor A wins the race--so the race is over for him--and then he goes back
and decks competitor B so that he can't finish. I say competitor A should be
DQed even though he's done with the race.]
In any case, I think this may be a situation where it would pay to hear the
other side of the story. Often things that sound this one-sided are not.
-Harold
Brian Wagner
>
> He's repeatedly said " The bike course was closed." That leads me to believe
> that there were still runners on the course and that the race was *not* over,
> since otherwise he'd just say "The course was closed" or "The race was over."
He said the bike course had been closed for over 90 minutes. It was a
sprint.
In any event, it was over as far as he was concerned. The top finishers
were probably already home having a cold one; should we be nailing them
for outside assistance if someone gets them a sandwich?
> You can argue about whether the difference matters, but I can envision the
> rules being written in a way that make the distinction important. [E.g.,
> competitor A wins the race--so the race is over for him--and then he goes back
> and decks competitor B so that he can't finish. I say competitor A should be
> DQed even though he's done with the race.]
Different story - it's conduct that materially impacts the race. On the
other hand, what if some guy off the street, with no connection to the
race, decks competitor B - what then? I'll tell you what - it's called
assault and battery, and someone other than the RD (namely, the cops)
have authority to deal with it, whether it's competitor A or some random
stranger. See how nicely society has this worked out -civilization WILL
stand without USAT or the RD taking over the world. In the suburb
adjacent to mine, they have a bicycle helmet law for adults - thus, in
that jurisdiction, there is competent legal authority to achieve Phil's
and the RD's utopian dreams.
> In any case, I think this may be a situation where it would pay to hear the
> other side of the story. Often things that sound this one-sided are not.
If Tom would just post where the race was and who the promoter is, it's
my precise intent to email the RD and inquire as to his side, and invite
him to post it. Clearly, all our comments are based on the facts as
they are currently available to us, and it is only within that context
that intelligent discussion can take place.
Phil Holman
rules"
> not sanctioned or published by USAT, or if they do or can have "local
> rules," that these be clearly stated in writing and approved by USAT for
> that particular race. This was certainly NOT the case with the post-helmet
> so-called "violation."
This is the most interesting point you make. If in fact the RD was out of
line,
there is more to it than just that fact. Somehow the RD got to affect the
results
which implicates USAT officials. I did ask this question of Charlie and note
the
absence of a response.
Phil Holman
Jim Quinn
the 2nd amendement (the right to bear your head).
You know since the motorcyclists got the right to go without helmets their
mortality rates have soared. A function of Darwins law in my opinion.
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3D8F2E4E...@cle.philips.com...
Tom Rodgers
transition area to the parking lot, for me about 20-30 meters mounted on the
bike, could not in any way have materially involved runners. They would not
have allowed hundreds of participants to be taking their bikes along this
road if it did, nor would mounting the bike have been permitted at all, much
less without a helmet. It's not like I was swerving into someone's way or
endangering. In fact, by pedaling a few strokes, I was probably 10 meters
clear ahead of all the other bike walkers, no way to even TOUCH anyone at
all. I could have potentially presented more of a hazard by walking with the
crowd, stumbling and dropping my backpack, than by my behavior that day.
In my opinion, the proper place to view the actual outcome of this conflict
is via a proper protest and/or appeal to the USAT officials. These are
routinely posted on the USAT web site, and it's very interesting to read
about past decisions involving famous athletes over the years.
As with other judicial matters, it's best to let the "due process" take it's
course and then of course be open to the public. One would not prematurely
release a race strategy prior to the race itself. One does not release a
legal pleading to the public before delivering it to the judge.
I am not doing this to "win" something like a place finish, rankings points,
etc. In fact it pains me to have to take issue with any fellow devotee of
the triathlon movement. The RD is not someone I was or want to "compete
with." I am doing this to defend my honor and integrity as a racer, mentor,
role-model, and someone well-respected in this sport--would like to continue
to be so. Had this simply involved a politely rendered time penalty, I would
not even have bothered with it. But to be DQ'd, "banned from local races for
life," and publicly insulted verbally requires a response to retain
self-respect. But that same honor and respect for multisport itself requires
a measured respone that does not go overboard--which is how this all started
in the first place, someone going overboard with their emotions.
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3D8F71F7...@cle.philips.com...
Phil Holman
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> > Obviously a lot more complicated than the other sports you mention.
>
> No, it's not. It's quite simple - the rules exist to facilitate
> participation in the sport.
> They have no application to those not participating in the sport. They
> do not bind spectators,
<snip more irrelevent spew>
>
> > Do you have all of the facts Brian,
>
> I have enough. The race was LONG over. Tom was no longer racing. He
> had entered that part of his life that was not the RD's business, you
> know, the part where he's not racing.
Yep, but the RD was only a part of the action of getting him DQd.
There had to be a race official that went along with this.
I wonder what the story is?
Oh I forgot, you already have enough information.
>
> > for example do you know if anything from the rule below was in effect.
>
> That rule has no bearing. USAT has no power to grant the RD authority
> beyond governing his race. The RD cannot, by petitioning USAT, gain
> authority to ban me from eating at Burger King after the race, because
> such authority is not USAT's to grant. USAT, and the RD, do not own
> someone just because they, at some point in their lives, took part in a
> triathlon. It's called the 13th Amendment - go look it up.
Wrong..... wishful thinking on your part. Maybe you should read the rules
and list all the ones that apply outside of the actual race period. There is
no
intent to control anyone.....your paranoia is working overtime.
>
> > This RD obviously thought he was empowered to act the way he did.
>
> He thought? What with? He's a hotheaded moron. Charles Manson thought
> he was empowered to act the way he did, too. Maybe the RD was listening
> to the White Album a little too much?
RD being compared to Charles Manson and you call him a hothead.
What do they call you Brian.....level headed.
>
> > I'm not saying he was right but I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
>
> Sure you are.
Hey git, can you read. The conclusion will be arrived at after Tom
goes through his hearing process. I think this is a good thing because
there is obviously a lot of ambiguity among people who are not
blessed with your clarity of thought.
>You already said so. Because it's all about safety,
Anything about helmets is about safety and nothing else.
Do you know what objective argument is.
Judging by your responses this appears to be a totally alien
concept to you.
> you're fully endorsing this paternalistic power grab. Safety is a
> little red flag before a bull to you, like that other nannystate
> catchall phrase, "it's for the children." Just like all the other
> whale-saving, fiber-munching paternalist, statist safety nazi's, you
> don't feel anyone has any right to make a decision for themself when
> safety is involved.
Personally I couldn't give a rats if there was a helmet rule or not.
My pet pieve is against people who break the rules and get caught
and whine like stuck pigs. In Tom's case he has a legitimate reason
for appealing. He has left all of the whining to the likes of yourself.
You have done an outstanding job.
>
> > 1.4 Rules Exceptions and Additions. For any particular event,
> Please note "For any particular event," THE EVENT WAS **OVER**
Did a fat lady sing or was it a stuck pig whining.
Phil Holman
Jason O'Rourke
>You know since the motorcyclists got the right to go without helmets their
>mortality rates have soared. A function of Darwins law in my opinion.
Good luck proving that - you can't.
In CA the opposite happened when the lid law was passed - there was a slight
increase. If you knew more about motorcycling, I'd explain, but I suspect
it would be a waste of time.
Jason O'Rourke
>As with other judicial matters, it's best to let the "due process" take it's
>course and then of course be open to the public. One would not prematurely
>release a race strategy prior to the race itself. One does not release a
>legal pleading to the public before delivering it to the judge.
Tom, if you believe this, then WTF are you doing posting about it here, and
continuing to dangle more bits of evidence in the r.s.t. community?
Make a choice one way or the other, or at least stop making this assertion.
Tom Rodgers
postings, a few people actually gave me useful information about the rules.
Most importantly, Charlie Crawford, head referee of all of USAT, stated that
post-race penalties are not within the purview of USAT rules.
Otherwise it has served as a useful "poll" of popular opinion in the sport,
and I'm glad that most of it has been supportive of my position. This has
augmented my decision to move head with the formal process. Now, it is
mostly others making assertions mostly in support, and sometimes I have
tried to reel these in to prevent any direct attacks by them that would
exceed my own intentions.
I've been on the internet for 22 years (yes, one of the engineering geeks
from way back), and I've seen how rumors and news/email list debates
escalate like a forest fire, sometimes moving far beyond the original facts
or intentions of the initiators. I due believe in free speech, my own and
others, including the right to state your tempered response to others'
responses.
I should probably remain silent as to future postings, to let things die
down, but temptation is hard to resist....
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:amp4do$26hl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Brian Wagner
>
> This is the most interesting point you make. If in fact the RD was out of
> line,
> there is more to it than just that fact. Somehow the RD got to affect the
> results
> which implicates USAT officials. I did ask this question of Charlie and note
> the
> absence of a response.
Charlie responded to the entire issue quite succinctly. "We are not your
mother."
"Local rules" are not an issue, since the authority in question is not
USAT's to grant.
Brian Wagner
>
> The 14th amendment? What a bogus argument, it should be protected under the
> the 2nd amendement (the right to bear your head).
The argument was that government may not limit or prohibit a behavior
without demonstrating a compelling public safety interest in doing so.
> You know since the motorcyclists got the right to go without helmets their
> mortality rates have soared. A function of Darwins law in my opinion.
Helmet laws interfere with natural protection. He who does not wear a
helmet has nothing to protect.
Brian Wagner
>
> As far as the run course still open issue is concerned, the path from the
> transition area to the parking lot, for me about 20-30 meters mounted on the
> bike, could not in any way have materially involved runners.
The issue was whether the race was entirely over.
> As with other judicial matters, it's best to let the "due process" take it's
> course and then of course be open to the public. One would not prematurely
> release a race strategy prior to the race itself. One does not release a
> legal pleading to the public before delivering it to the judge.
Actually, it's public record as soon as it's entered into the
proceedings.
> In fact it pains me to have to take issue with any fellow devotee of
> the triathlon movement. The RD is not someone I was or want to "compete
> with."
No "competition" implied. As it stands now, you've made allegations of
unacceptable conduct by a vendor in the industry, and by not releasing
his identity, you are colluding with him to keep his practices secret
from consumers, who have a right to make an informed purchase decision.
Brian Wagner
>
> Otherwise it has served as a useful "poll" of popular opinion in the sport,
> and I'm glad that most of it has been supportive of my position. This has
> augmented my decision to move head with the formal process.
That's a funny way of deciding. Morality and ethics guided by polls and
what's popular?
Who's advising you, Dick Morris? Don't you have any faith in your own
sense of right and wrong?
> I've been on the internet for 22 years (yes, one of the engineering geeks
> from way back), and I've seen how rumors and news/email list debates
> escalate like a forest fire, sometimes moving far beyond the original facts
> or intentions of the initiators. I due believe in free speech, my own and
> others, including the right to state your tempered response to others'
> responses.
But you are the one making the allegations. You should know your own
honesty. It's not like you're repeating hearsay.
> I should probably remain silent as to future postings, to let things die
> down, but temptation is hard to resist....
Feel your anger grow, young Skywalker. Soon you will know the darkside.
Brian Wagner
>
> Yep, but the RD was only a part of the action of getting him DQd.
> There had to be a race official that went along with this.
No, there didn't have to be any race official involvement. The head
referee reports penalties to the RD, who adjusts the results
accordingly. The RD controls, posts, and reports the results. There is
nothing to stop him from putting a big DQ next to your name. The RD
controls the timing equipment. The RD controls the website, and the
results submitted for ranking. He applies the information the officials
give him. If he wanted to add ten minutes to everyone's time, the
officials wouldn't even know it. Heck, he doesn't even need to HAVE
USAT officials there.
> Wrong..... wishful thinking on your part. Maybe you should read the rules
> and list all the ones that apply outside of the actual race period.
Name one that doesn't involve actions that materially impact the race.
> My pet pieve is against people who break the rules and get caught
> and whine like stuck pigs. In Tom's case he has a legitimate reason
> for appealing.
Some of us saw that days ago.
Phil Holman
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> > Yep, but the RD was only a part of the action of getting him DQd.
> > There had to be a race official that went along with this.
>
> No, there didn't have to be any race official involvement. The head
> referee reports penalties to the RD, who adjusts the results
> accordingly. The RD controls, posts, and reports the results. There is
> nothing to stop him from putting a big DQ next to your name. The RD
> controls the timing equipment. The RD controls the website, and the
> results submitted for ranking. He applies the information the officials
> give him. If he wanted to add ten minutes to everyone's time, the
> officials wouldn't even know it. Heck, he doesn't even need to HAVE
> USAT officials there.
That's absurd. Such deviation from the rules is followed by waking up.
9.5 Official Race Results.
Final results will reflect all decisions made by the Head Referee and the
Protest Committee. Results are subject to review by the Head Referee at or
after the event. Any changes made by the Head Referee shall be reported to
the competitor, the Race Director, and the Executive Director of USAT in
writing no later than 10 days after the event, at which time the results
will be deemed final, subject to any appeal filed by a competitor, including
anyone affected by the change in results.
9.7 Judges.
Judges shall hear and rule on all protests as members of the Protest
Committee. Judges shall also assist other race officials as instructed by
the Head Referee.
9.8 Head Timer.
The Head Timer is responsible for collecting and processing all data
relevant to the calculation and determination of official race results.
There is a violation of the rules if results are posted that do not reflect
the decisions of
the Head Referee. Is that clear.
You keep assigning all power to the RD but this would be "passively
condoning"
violation of the rules by USAT.
> > Wrong..... wishful thinking on your part. Maybe you should read the
rules
> > and list all the ones that apply outside of the actual race period.
>
> Name one that doesn't involve actions that materially impact the race.
You make that statement which is consistent with your lack of knowledge
of the rules. You bring a peeshooter to a gunfight.
>
> > My pet peeve is against people who break the rules and get caught
> > and whine like stuck pigs. In Tom's case he has a legitimate reason
> > for appealing.
>
> Some of us saw that days ago.
>
No, someone wanted to hang the RD from a tree several days ago.
What you were seeing was the result of your own prejudiced viewpoint
and little to do with actual facts. For reasonable people it hasn't been
established yet if a rule was broken or not.
One might think you had a beef with this RD.........nah, why would anyone
think that.
Phil Holman
gttim
"Phil Holman" wrote
>
> That's absurd. Such deviation from the rules is followed by waking up.
Brian again has it wrong. You must remember he no longer does USAT races, so
he might be fuzyy on procedure. Oh, and everybody has pretty much cleared
out by the time he has finished.
Tim
Brian Wagner
>
> 9.5 Official Race Results.
>
> Final results will reflect all decisions made by the Head Referee and the
> Protest Committee. Results are subject to review by the Head Referee at or
> after the event.
Hey, Phil, reality calling. Who controls the timing equipment? The RD
or his employees.
Who controls the website where the results are posted? The RD or his
employees.
Who puts on the race? The RD. The race is his 'property.' Quote the
rules all you want - the officials serve at the pleasure of the RD.
More than half the sanctioned races out there do not have USAT
officials. At least one quarter of them do not have ANY officials.
There is no requirement to use USAT officials. Now, given that there
are not enough officials to go around, how likely do you think it is
they have the time to review race results, and if they do, how the hell
do they know what time penalties were assessed, since they don't have
access to the raw numbers from the championchip system in the first
place? An unknown number plus 2 minutes equals another unknown number.
Most results are not posted until a couple days after the race, at which
point
the officials have all returned home. In Tom's case, he was simply
deleted from the race results, which the officials have no way of
knowing about, because they don't have access to the RD's registration
records.
> 9.7 Judges.
> Judges shall hear and rule on all protests as members of the Protest
> Committee. Judges shall also assist other race officials as instructed by
> the Head Referee.
>
> 9.8 Head Timer.
>
> The Head Timer is responsible for collecting and processing all data
> relevant to the calculation and determination of official race results.
>
> There is a violation of the rules if results are posted that do not reflect
> the decisions of
> the Head Referee. Is that clear.
I never said they didn't reflect the decisions of the Head Referee. The
point is that isn't necessarily ALL they reflect. Unless the Head
Referee explicitly decided that Tom was not DQ'd, then they reflect his
decisions perfectly.
> You keep assigning all power to the RD but this would be "passively
> condoning"
> violation of the rules by USAT.
Are you really this naive? Possession is nine tenths of the law. Part
of the reason I stopped looking for sanctioned races is that there was
no difference in how sanctioned and non-sanctioned races were conducted.
The only thing USAT really cares about with regard to sanctioning is
that they get their $7 for every non-member racing. It's all about the
money.
> No, someone wanted to hang the RD from a tree several days ago.
No, some of us wanted to avoid his races. What happened to your sense
of precision, Phil?
> What you were seeing was the result of your own prejudiced viewpoint
> and little to do with actual facts.
No, it was precisely based on the facts as presented.
> For reasonable people it hasn't been established yet if a rule was broken or not.
Um, yes it has. Charlie has been very clear about that.
Reasonable people do not hold that entering a race gives the RD control
over your life outside the race.
> One might think you had a beef with this RD.
I do, over his conduct as related by Tom.
Tom Rodgers
violations, postings, protests, etc.:
1. The results posted on the internet show no penalty for disqualification,
in fact they show me not listed at all, as if I never even showed up for the
race, even though such results usually show variable time penalties, DNFs,
etc. I do not know what results have been transmitted to USAT.
2. The penalty (if indeed we can even call it an official penalty) was
issued verbally (or more accurately, shoutingly) by the RD himself. No
referee issued it. No rule was cited as violated.
3. The competitor requested clarification of the rule and legitimacy of the
disqualification (and the "banned for life" from all local events) both from
the RD and in fact from the regional referee coordinator for the entire USAT
region (though not working as a referee that day). That was denied, and he
was just asked to leave. The requests were made politely by an injured
athlete, to tired and weary to get very upset.
4. The competitor requested to speak with the head referee and lodge a
protest, standing just three meters away, and was again denied (not denied
access by the head referee, but by the RD and his wife), told to leave, and
was in fact escorted from the race site without even being allowed to
retrieve the helmet he forgot in the transition area, the cause of the
entire affair. This seemed due in part to avoid embarrassment at the RD
having already yelled, screamed and "made a scene," or because indeed
parties new that a legitimate rules violation had not taken place.
The formal "appeal" to the "protest never allowed to be heard" is being
filed today with the USAT authorities.
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:BAuk9.97$t6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tom Ruta
....
>4. The competitor requested to speak with the head referee and lodge a
>protest, standing just three meters away, and was again denied (not denied
>access by the head referee, but by the RD and his wife),
Where did this take place - Communist China??
>told to leave, and
>was in fact escorted from the race site without even being allowed to
>retrieve the helmet he forgot in the transition area, the cause of the
>entire affair....
Someone has to ask: is the helmet still there?
Tom
Brian Wagner
>
> In this specific case, there were several deviations from these rules about
> violations, postings, protests, etc.:
>
> 1. The results posted on the internet show no penalty for disqualification,
> in fact they show me not listed at all, as if I never even showed up for the
> race, even though such results usually show variable time penalties, DNFs,
> etc. I do not know what results have been transmitted to USAT.
And no head ref had to sign off on that, because he has no way of
knowing who registered for the race, since that's part of the RD's
private business records. this has the added benefit for the RD that if
you aren't a USAT member, he also gets to pocket the $7.
For Phil, the facts in point #1 were contained in Tom's original post.
> 2. The penalty (if indeed we can even call it an official penalty) was
> issued verbally (or more accurately, shoutingly) by the RD himself. No
> referee issued it. No rule was cited as violated.
This point was also in Tom's original post.
> 3. The competitor requested clarification of the rule and legitimacy of the
> disqualification (and the "banned for life" from all local events) both from
> the RD and in fact from the regional referee coordinator for the entire USAT
> region (though not working as a referee that day). That was denied, and he
> was just asked to leave. The requests were made politely by an injured
> athlete, to tired and weary to get very upset.
This was mentioned in Tom's first or second post, which were within a
couple hours of each other.
> 4. The competitor requested to speak with the head referee and lodge a
> protest, standing just three meters away, and was again denied (not denied
> access by the head referee, but by the RD and his wife), told to leave, and
And again, mentioned in the first two posts.
> was in fact escorted from the race site without even being allowed to
> retrieve the helmet he forgot in the transition area, the cause of the
> entire affair. This seemed due in part to avoid embarrassment at the RD
> having already yelled, screamed and "made a scene," or because indeed
> parties new that a legitimate rules violation had not taken place.
This is new. Now we can add larceny to the list of the RD's sins. It
just gets better.
So, Phil, just how many times DO you need to hear the facts before you
can process them?
Tom Rodgers
then "sneak" back to the transition area by walking through a forest with
thick underbrush, this while bleeding with much road rash after a bike
accident, then hop over the fence, then get the helmet. Frankly, I feared
arrest if I tried to open pass by these people and enter the transition area
through the mounting area to retrieve the gear.
I don't know so much that they were trying to deliberately keep me from the
helmet, just get me away from the area before others heard my protests,
adding the "embarrassment factor." Still, it is rather ironic, don't you
think? That the net effect of the incident might compelled me to ride
without a helmet when I got home, or even the next day. I guess their
obsessive concern for my welfare and safety did not extend that far, or
expired when I started to make a protest.
"Tom Ruta" <ru...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:l2s6pu8s68vkbcgij...@4ax.com...
Harold Buck
"Tom Rodgers" <t...@svi.net> wrote:
> adding the "embarrassment factor." Still, it is rather ironic, don't you
> think? That the net effect of the incident might compelled me to ride
> without a helmet when I got home, or even the next day. I guess their
> obsessive concern for my welfare and safety did not extend that far, or
> expired when I started to make a protest.
Um, I don't see hwo it could have "compelled" you to ride the next day
without a helmet. If you were to decide to ride without a helmet, that's
your call. Sure, you would have had a helmet the next day if they had
confiscated it, but that wouldn't give you a license to act stupid and
blame other people for it.
-Harold
Tom Ruta
>.... Frankly, I feared
>arrest if I tried to open pass by these people and enter the transition area
>through the mounting area to retrieve the gear.
Arrest? Was the transition area in someone's back yard??
Tom
Tom Rodgers
was a public park, those police were, at that time, employed by the RD's
company, and might well have acted as such as his agents. I had been asked
to leave, escorted away from the transition area, and feared that returning
might prompt an officer to arrest me for disobeying an order. Whether or not
such an arrest was valid or not had nothing to do with my desire to simply
get home with my gear. I was hurt, I was bleeding, I was dizzy, and I only
lived 15 minutes away. After the blow to the head in the bike crash, I went
home and slept for 4 hours, this after a fairly untaxing Olympic distance
race in the middle of Ironman-distance training for Kona. Probably a mild
concussion.
Again, these are large, well-run, and usually well-officiated races put on
by experienced people. That's why I do this RD's races, that's why we WERE
friends, despite his quirky temperament. I plan and hope to do more of them,
since there are a half-dozen or more tris or dus just 15 minutes from where
I lived. When I moved back into the area this year, I chose this location
because of the lake, the race area, and an ideal place to train in just
about the only hilly location in the area.
"Tom Ruta" <ru...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:ba27puoki7jsgljjm...@4ax.com...
Phil Holman
> So, Phil, just how many times DO you need to hear the facts before you
> can process them?
>
When it's all of the facts just once. I don't believe we are at that point
yet.
Phil Holman
Brian Wagner
>
> When it's all of the facts just once. I don't believe we are at that point
> yet.
>
brand of shoes he wore?
We've long since reached a quorum of facts for a decision, unless you
think Tom is lying.
Stacy Hills
| get home with my gear. I was hurt, I was bleeding, I was dizzy, and I only
| lived 15 minutes away. After the blow to the head in the bike crash, I
went
| home and slept for 4 hours, this after a fairly untaxing Olympic distance
| race in the middle of Ironman-distance training for Kona. Probably a mild
| concussion.
|
In my opinion you shouldn't ever use that helmet again. If the "blow to the
head" was, indeed, enough to cause these other symptoms that you noted then
it was probably enough to compromise the integrity of the helmet. The cost
of a new helmet is certainly not worth risking your gray matter leaking all
over the pavement should you fall again.
stacy hills
reston, va
Harold Buck
Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
I agree completely. This is just like in a criminal case, where the
prosecution presents their side of the case and the judge says, "Well,
we've gotten a quorom of the facts, so we won't be needing to hear from
the defense. We'll render a verdict and sentence shortly." This sort of
thing happens on "Law and Order" all of the time.
-Harold
Brian Wagner
Or where the defense declines to present a case, merely asserting that
the prosecution has failed to meet its burden. This case is quite clear
on the accounts presented; the only issue is the credibility of Tom as a
witness, and no one has come forth with anything to challenge it. I
have asked him for the information to solicit such challenge from the
RD, but he feels some misguided need to keep it confidential, even
though it would be simple enough, if anyone wants to make the effort, to
figure it out.
Phil Holman
"Harold Buck" <no_one...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-D157...@netnews.attbi.com...
Your account so far is not an established fact or you commit the same
sin as reportedly carried out by the RD.
Brian has so say reached a quorum of facts so who needs to
hear from the RD or anyone else present at the race.
What is the difference between what you say above and what Brian has
concluded. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Get on with the appeal and the hearing. Everything else on this NG
is pure speculation based on a one sided account. The bottom line for me
is I choose to not pass judgement until I hear all accounts. The same way
that Tom reportedly would have liked to have been treated by the RD. Yes.
Phil Holman
Harold Buck
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
Wow, my post wasn't sarcastic enough? I didn't think there was any way
anyone would think I was agreeing wih the previous post.
In case it isn't clear enough, the courts do NOT routinely pass judgment
without giving the defense a chance to present its case. This is why I
made an earlier post suggesting that we needed to hear the RDs side of
the case since most things are not really as one-sided as they appear
when you hear, well, only one side.
For example, the original poster keeps saying that he was completely
well-mannered and civil. Often when people say things like this, they
weren't being so civil, although they like to think they were.
Anyway, just to be perfectly clear, I was being sarcastic, and I
wholeheartedly think that the other side needs to be heard.
-Harold
Phil Holman
OK, that was not totally clear.
I'm glad we are on the same page. On this particular point at least.
Time to go ride.
Phil Holman
Brian Wagner
>
> Your account so far is not an established fact or you commit the same
> sin as reportedly carried out by the RD.
> Brian has so say reached a quorum of facts so who needs to
> hear from the RD or anyone else present at the race.
I welcome hearing from him, but at this point, the only probative value
of his side lies in exposing Tom's account as dishonest. Tom's account
is COMPLETE enough to draw conclusions from; the only remaining issue is
whether it is CREDIBLE. You are confusing the two concepts stated in
caps. As I said, all conclusions are dependent on the credibility and
accuracy of Tom's account, and as soon as a SHRED of evidence that they
are not accurate is offered, are subject to revision. However, in the
context of Tom's account being accurate, it does not lack for
completeness - its scope is adequate for concluding that, AS DESCRIBED,
the RD's conduct is inexcusable.
Tom Rodgers
situation, since I freely admit to NOT wearing a helmet while riding my bike
20-30 meters toward my car after the race. I guess you could debate whether
whether is was in fact closer to 25 or 35 meters, but that doesn't really
matter. Nor would anyone who knows the RD debate that he can sometimes fly
off the handle--he was my friend previously despite this occasional lapse
that has been witnessed by many. The fact of my bike crash, the bloody
injuries, etc., are not debatable, and were in fact photographed by the
local newspaper in the official medical van at the race site. That I have
never been disqualified from any race or caused any controversy within this
USAT region is also a fact, and that I do know how to race and know the
rules based on Kona qualifications and several first-in-age-group finishes
in the region.
The only thing that can be argued about is my internal state of mind,
whether or not my capacity was truly diminished and that I absent-mindedly
FORGOT my helmet, rather than deliberately trying to flaunt the "non-rule"
and avoid wearing it against the protests. I think the RD got the idea that
I was racing off on my bike trying to avoid detection while intentionally
not wearing my helmet. That sparked his yelling criticism. He may still
think this--he may always thing this no matter the outcome of the appeal and
we may never be friends again. That is sad. But I don't see why I would have
left my helmet an additional 100 meters behind the transition mount point
near my rack position rather than taking it with me if I had not forgotten
it. Why intentionally pedal away to my car from my own valuable gear?
It's pretty hard to determine subjective states of mind in an objective
hearing. If this is indeed NOT a valid rule (as Charlie Crawford suggested
in his reply to my hypothetical query about post-race violations), then my
state of mind really doesn't matter at all, and I had the "right" not to
wear it back to the car. If it is indeed a potential rule violation, then
intent might affect the severity of the punishment, be it a time-penalty or
disqualification for deliberately disobeying a safety rule.
Interestingly enough, it is probably most important to myself, and not the
external rules hearing, whether my intentions were honorable and my mistake
truly inadvertent. I do in fact wish I had not forgotten my helmet, and had
I retrieved it from the transition area with the rest of my gear, it almost
surely would have been atop my head, rule or no. As I've said before, if I
had just been issued a time-penalty for absent-mindedly disobeying an
unfathomed rule, I probably would not have even argued the point. But to be
treated as a deliberate, offensive miscreant in public was far afield of
just response.
But I do like the way the newsgroup has tested my reasoning about the case.
Though some of the messages seem more personal and a bit trivial, afar from
the subject, a significant minority have raised valid issues, just the sort
that will occur to the appellant judges of USAT. Knowing this advance of
meeting with them can only help. Thanks for all your arguments, pro and con.
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3D986750...@cle.philips.com...