jonathan wrote:BNicely wrote:Justin,

Please list a single Cat 3 rider by license number allowed in the field:

i didnt find any cat3s, but i found a cat 5:
http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?compid=285594

That was actually Peter Taylor from Team Specialized in the race (I saw a Facebook pic of him in the race), who is a Cat 2. When the results were done they just picked the wrong Peter Taylor from USAC. I asked that this be corrected.

Bill,

I apologize for the language. I was pretty irate. Won't happen again, (the language I mean).

I'll PM you regarding the other stuff.

BNicely wrote:Justin,

Please list a single Cat 3 rider by license number allowed in the field:

i didnt find any cat3s, but i found a cat 5:
http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?compid=285594

Justin,

Please list a single Cat 3 rider by license number allowed in the field:

http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?event=2010-677

Also, please be careful with your language. Masking a four letter word is not sufficient.

Rand,

How is Fabrice doing? How has this effected his work, etc? Anything we can do to help?

Bill

P.S. As mentioned before, I believe the lessons learned from this event should be considered in the permit process.

Well, Rand, The reason for all the extreme-case hyperbole is mostly that the guys lobbing such hyperbolic grenades are a) not even good enough to be in the race(s) in question, b) have no real sense of how drastic the effects are of mixing categories 1, 2 and 3 in a race with twice the normal field size and zero attrition (yes, there were cat 3's allowed into the race for some reason), and c) didn't have to watch their team mate go into f*cking shock on a sidewalk from slamming into a metal pole that should have been covered with a $2 hay bale. So it's really easy for them to say stupid crap like "bike racing is dangerous," feel all snarky and smug, and add nothing to the conversation.

Aside, what the f*ck do the dangers of mountain biking have to do with anything? Talk about hyperbole. "Femur schmemur. Come talk to me after you've descended Mt. Diablo on a penny farthing. "

When I wrote my blog post about Fabrice, I never intended to initiate a cry for massive oversight of course design, nor am I a pansy-ass who thinks we should be wearing elbow pads in bike races on foam-lined courses.

Yes, we all signed a waiver, but if broken femurs were a common occurrence, I guarantee that far fewer of us would do so. Is it really so surprising that people are disturbed by a shattered leg?

I think we can all agree that the Sac GP was an outlier, a perfect storm of all that can go wrong in a criterium. I, for one, am glad for what the subsequent -- though probably overblown -- outcry revealed: that there are many who are willing to try and improve the safety of future courses. Why there are some who insist that such discussion is pointless, I'll never understand.

From now on, instead of wildly swinging this type of conversation from "It's all the promoter's and the officials' fault" to "Nope, you're just a sissy who can't read the waiver," can't we all just agree that improved safety would be a good thing, if it was possible? Yes, there are limitations, financially and physically, to how safe we can make the sport...but we certainly haven't reached that limit just yet.

I am sorry anyone crashes in this beautiful and risky sport, but peterpen has it nailed here. Or, as a wise man once said, "Handle your sh*t, yo."

If you can't accept the risk (see the release form), you might want to choose triathlon and/or indoor cycling classes where crashes are minimal. And you'll still sign a release form. As riders, collectively and individually, I believe we create more risk that the course or promoters. Keep in mind most promoters ARE racers or at least former racers who wish us no harm.

News Flash: Bike Racing is Dangerous

Seriously, all the finger-pointing on this forum and the listserv is very disheartening, particularly when people start throwing in lawyerly threats of negligence or recklessness.

The field was bigger than the usual NCNCA crit, but there are other crits with equally large fields. You don't want to race with 175 other guys? Then don't sign up. (FWIW, I think the sketchiest part of the race was the people who don't normally race P12 crits turning up just so they could pretend to have some association with TOC. Definitely not the same guys I raced P12 crits against the previous 4 weekends. Seriously, there was a guy lined up with his underwear on under his bibs - didn't see his bike, but it probably had a bento box on the top tube.)

It's bike racing. It's dangerous. Crashes are *always* somebody else's fault - but if you want to blame someone, blame yourself for picking a sport where you ride in circles with 100 (or 175) other adrenaline junkies at 30+mph. Don't blame the "region." (Which is really just a few volunteers and poorly paid officials who are trying to help the sport they love.)

Fabrice had a horrible injury and I wish him a speedy recovery. I really hope whoever pushed him wide thinks twice about diving another corner. But Fabrice's injury was no more the direct fault of the promoter or officials than was the severe head injury suffered by the Cat 3 racer at Pine Flat RR this year. When people start talking about promoters or officials being negligent or reckless and implying that suing someone is the answer, it seriously makes me hope they switch sports. And, as much as it pains my liberal bleeding heart to say this, I wish there was more vocal culture of personal responsibility in NCNCA.

ZebraMan wrote:

That many racers on a featureless course with no hazard protections is beyond negligence. It's reckless disregard for racer safety. It's time the region takes a more active role in disallowing or regulating some of these aberrant races.

I would love to see the vituperative rant you would have made had an NCNCA representative/official/authority told you that you could not have your beloved P-turn the first year you had the Napa race, before it had been raced on yet.

So, do we hire a safety engineer and pay thousands of dollars per event for them to certify a course as safe? Because, for someone to take on the liability to survey a course and certify it they will need pretty good (read: expensive) insurance. This also brings liability upon NCNCA. Why do you think we no longer do bike checks before races?

Often we learn about the course and potential safety concerns after the event has been held, not before. You would be hard-pressed to obtain general agreement on even basic safety considerations for courses.

Your rants suggest a reckless disregard for those you criticize and actually create liability for NCNCA. As an attorney I would think you would understand that. As Chair of the Safety Committee I would expect you to be more circumspect, judicious, fair and measured in your public comments.

Undecided wrote:The field size limit at Dana Point was 150; the field size limit at Mt. Hood is 200 and it has 2 crits; yes, nationals; the field limit at the Cat 2 crit at Somerville is 175 (and the Pro/1 is 220).

I don't disagree with your broader point that safety considerations are important, of course, and may not have been adequately prioritized in Sac (and those considerations, of course, may include field sizes that reflect a particular course---but that means there isn't some presumption that a field of size X is always unreasonable).

Dude, you may choose not to cite Dana Point to support your argument. Was that an "elite crit" that merited a 50% larger field than what might otherwise be considered a safe max? Have you seen the videos?? They had horrendous crashes in at least the pro's, 2's and 3's races, and I suspect a lot more. (Those are the only ones I've seen on video).

Dana absolutely proves my Point. :roll:

And your point was?

Obviously missed since you responded with activities that are NOT bike racing related.

ZebraMan wrote:Undecided wrote:The lack of barriers seems like a poor decision, but such a large field limit isn't unknown for elite crits. I don't agree with the conclusion that it's definitively unreasonable.

Really? Name one. Philly? Nationals?

The field size limit at Dana Point was 150; the field size limit at Mt. Hood is 200 and it has 2 crits; yes, nationals; the field limit at the Cat 2 crit at Somerville is 175 (and the Pro/1 is 220).

I don't disagree with your broader point that safety considerations are important, of course, and may not have been adequately prioritized in Sac (and those considerations, of course, may include field sizes that reflect a particular course---but that means there isn't some presumption that a field of size X is always unreasonable).

Base jumping, juggling flaming torches, triple back flips off the 10 meter platform, having an apple shot off your head by an archer, leaping naked from moving trains without a bike.

And your point was?

Baby heads, drop offs, run ups, creek crossings, trains (as in actually climbing on to one and running to the end with your bike and climbing off the back...while it's moving), puddles so deep that your elbow comes out with a leach on it, and 2000' drops only inches from the 18" wide single track that you are doing 25+ down.

Just sayin.

On one of the videos, it looks like riders went in from the s/f pit after the 1st lap. Why were riders going in after one lap--had they already had a flat? Had they missed the start?

justin wrote:The field size and makeup was definitely a big disappointment and made for a sketchy, awful race, but let's be clear: the negligence falls squarely on the shoulders of the officials. That course should have never been approved for our race, regardless of whether Amgen barred any course 'alterations' or not

I don't think we need to affix the scarlett "N" to any particular party. The promoters were over-zealous, under-cautious, perhaps inexperienced, but overall probably just lacking in "givashit."

The officials blew it. The Chief Ref by not recognizing the dangers and taking control to protect the racers, and the wheel pit official by a truly dreadful restart.

The region is ultimately to blame by not having the protocols in place to prevent this from happening, as well as some of the the other objects of my rants above. Hopefully that will soon change as the NCNCA moves to a new era of reform. Fingers crossed ....

The field size and makeup was definitely a big disappointment and made for a sketchy, awful race, but let's be clear: the negligence falls squarely on the shoulders of the officials. That course should have never been approved for our race, regardless of whether Amgen barred any course 'alterations' or not (that is reportedly the reason why the Women's race didn't get any hay bales, either). No protection on trees and signs, no race, period.

The officials that day were generally off their game. At one point I was part of a group of 10 who were given the green light to jump out of the wheel pit with the charging field less than a hundred meters away. Most of us sat, but a few guys were too excited to question the instructions and rode into the course. You know what happened next. For an official to make that call is still unfathomable for me. I can't believe what I saw.

Undecided wrote:The lack of barriers seems like a poor decision, but such a large field limit isn't unknown for elite crits. I don't agree with the conclusion that it's definitively unreasonable.

Really? Name one. Philly? Nationals?

What makes you think this was an "elite" crit? Because the teams were invited? On what basis? The participants were the same guys I race with/against every week regionally.

By the way, the pros even had trouble dealing with that Sac circuit (3 crashes in a couple of laps?), and they had less than 160 in the front peloton, and most of them unmotivated to personally triumph.

That many racers on a featureless course with no hazard protections is beyond negligence. It's reckless disregard for racer safety. It's time the region takes a more active role in disallowing or regulating some of these aberrant races.

So you take a featureless course, too many racers, an artificially narrowed course, a restart pit in a hazardous location, and substandard hazard protection .... and our bodies are forfeit.

WHO PROTECTS US? Are we obliged to personally preinspect the course and decide if we want to sacrifice our preregister fee and say "Hell no!!" Shouldn't the Region do that for us? Or is our only recourse to rant on the Forum and trash a race's rep until the beleagured promoter decides to change his/her policy or abandon the headache altogether? Not a very efficient system for change.

When some of the racers reacted about the Napa GP last year, I didn't necessarily agree that the technical course was inherently unsafe. But out of respect to the safety concerns expressed, I petitioned the City to give me an additional street to expand the course and eliminate the Crazy P turn; when the City declined, I changed the course to eliminate the P. I also lowered the field limits on all cat's and eliminated the 5's category.

I am looking down the schedule at some of our annual four-corner fests. How is it that some annual non-"elite" races have been allowed to take their field max's above 100? For cat 3's?? If that's not "definitely unreasonable," it's certainly close.

Why in the world was master's districts allowed to narrow the finish to road test a chip timing system at a crit?? THAT was "definitely unreasonable."

This rant isn't just about Sac, although it's a terrible case in point with dreadful results, but we really need to step up the safety protections all over the place. There are too many liberties being taken with our skin and bones!

The lack of barriers seems like a poor decision, but such a large field limit isn't unknown for elite crits. I don't agree with the conclusion that it's definitively unreasonable.