MarkSasser wrote:Benjamin Albracht wrote:I want to apologize to the riders in the mens cat 3 field for changing the dynamic of this race. I did not think about how my actions would effect others, and was very short sighted in how I behaved. In my haste to try and make the start on time I lost sight of the bigger picture. To Casey: please remove my result from this race I should not have received it. Again I'm sorry for my actions.
Benjamin Albracht

Benjamin

I am sure you have been thinking about that post all week. I know I would have been.

I think you just gained a lot of respect from your competitors. If not know you gained my respect. We all do things that seem "ok" at times then realize later it was a mistake. But to step up and take it head on and appolagize as you just did is more than enough for me.

To those in the race, what Benjamin just did should be enough to set this right.

Good Job B. Man-size appoligies ROCK.

MS

Standing up and taking the heat is admirable, at the same time it doesn't do anything to put things right.
It is but a very good first step. Action speaks louder than words.

The reality is though that there are few open women's races in this area any more. Based on looking at the results last year I get the following numbers. Yes in some cases categories may have been run together but placed separately

Cat 4 only women's races 43 races
Cat 3/4 races 14 races
Cat 3 only races 25 races
Cat 1/2/3 races 27 races
Cat 1/2 races 23
Open women races 7

mhernandez wrote:nice to see, benA.

yay! for upstanding citizenry n' all that.

~

now then ... i think it's about time we added back the cat 5 women's field. yeah, yeah ... it's USCF's gig ~ but fer crys's sake, 70+ women at "Senling"?

we can always make the races 4/5 for the women at events with historically lower field sizes.

bring back the cat 5 women's field. it's time. the sport would benefit from it.

why?

because too many races are women 1-4 and these newbie racers are thrown in to the wolves. I've heard a bunch o' thoughts on how 35-45 men-sies are getting bent about having to race out of their ability level. I agree with all that and would love to find a solution to best help all have a good time. Let's give the same consideration to la femmes.

paying $30 for a crit and getting blown out the back in the first 2 laps is no bang-for-buck ... and they won't come back. we all know how it work - separatin' fields by ability level pays off for all involved...racers, promoters, emt's.
m

Absolutely! Women's 1-4 fields are just an insult to new women racers.

nice to see, benA.

yay! for upstanding citizenry n' all that.

~

now then ... i think it's about time we added back the cat 5 women's field. yeah, yeah ... it's USCF's gig ~ but fer crys's sake, 70+ women at "Senling"?

we can always make the races 4/5 for the women at events with historically lower field sizes.

bring back the cat 5 women's field. it's time. the sport would benefit from it.

why?

because too many races are women 1-4 and these newbie racers are thrown in to the wolves. I've heard a bunch o' thoughts on how 35-45 men-sies are getting bent about having to race out of their ability level. I agree with all that and would love to find a solution to best help all have a good time. Let's give the same consideration to la femmes.

paying $30 for a crit and getting blown out the back in the first 2 laps is no bang-for-buck ... and they won't come back. we all know how it work - separatin' fields by ability level pays off for all involved...racers, promoters, emt's.
m

Benjamin Albracht wrote:I want to apologize to the riders in the mens cat 3 field for changing the dynamic of this race. I did not think about how my actions would effect others, and was very short sighted in how I behaved. In my haste to try and make the start on time I lost sight of the bigger picture. To Casey: please remove my result from this race I should not have received it. Again I'm sorry for my actions.
Benjamin Albracht

Benjamin

I am sure you have been thinking about that post all week. I know I would have been.

I think you just gained a lot of respect from your competitors. If not know you gained my respect. We all do things that seem "ok" at times then realize later it was a mistake. But to step up and take it head on and appolagize as you just did is more than enough for me.

To those in the race, what Benjamin just did should be enough to set this right.

Good Job B. Man-size appoligies ROCK.

MS

Benjamin Albracht wrote:I want to apologize to the riders in the mens cat 3 field for changing the dynamic of this race. I did not think about how my actions would effect others, and was very short sighted in how I behaved. In my haste to try and make the start on time I lost sight of the bigger picture. To Casey: please remove my result from this race I should not have received it. Again I'm sorry for my actions.
Benjamin Albracht

I know Ben. Ben is a good guy. This is exactly the kind of classy reply i'd expect from him. This comes down to "oversight" and "not thinking things through" rather then some devious plan to foil others. JMHO.

I want to apologize to the riders in the mens cat 3 field for changing the dynamic of this race. I did not think about how my actions would effect others, and was very short sighted in how I behaved. In my haste to try and make the start on time I lost sight of the bigger picture. To Casey: please remove my result from this race I should not have received it. Again I'm sorry for my actions.
Benjamin Albracht

I think the riders should have been let into the race. They should have had to chase the group down if they wanted to be competitive, not allowed to join in on the 2nd lap.

Quote:While I agree with the sentiment here, I would still question the character/actions of the cat.3 riders in Saturday's RR. If, like Bob L. said, they were instructed to not participate in the race, they either have very short memories or blatantly disregarded his instructions.

This much is clear, the riders should be disqualified from the event at the very least. Riders they chased down should be raised in the results and riders they assisted, particularly teammates, should be relegated. That is the only fair outcome.

The officials are capable of disqualifying riders, and changing the official results. Most of the time, however, they won't. Officials can pretty much do what they want and riders don't have any real way to appeal. This is a shortcoming of the USCF rulebook.

I recall a similar incident in the Berkeley Hills race a few years back when a lapped rider pulled the field up to a break and help a teammate win the field sprint. The officals didn't have time to deal with it so we went to the rider who placed and asked him to relegate himself, which to his credit he did. If the officials won't do what's right, ask the riders.

deSade

casey wrote:Fear Itself wrote:
You're telling us that allowing riders to protest "after the fact" is bad because it will cause too much trouble and too much time to be wasted. However, no one actually doing the racing is agreeing with that take I don't think. It's the officials that feel this way for obvious reasons. It's more work for them.

Do you really want to see race results changed 6 months after the fact if riders could protest, and appeal after the fact. Would we have some kind of waiting period ( say 1 month) for riders to submit any kind of protest? Do promoters hold all prizes until after the protest period and then end up having to mail prizes after the post event protest period is over? If you allow prizes to be handed out on race day then what happens when a protest changes the results several days or weeks after the race? Would these protests also apply to basic results? Does this mean that the officials and promoters have to keep changing the results for several weeks after the race due to these post event protests?

It is much easier to deal with protests at the race on race day when you should have access to all the officials and riders involved. After the race day is over it is much harder to get information from riders and officials which slows down the whole protest process.

Just like any set of policies and procedures, there's a reason for their existence. I don't argue that. However, there should also be a place for "special circumstance" cases such as this. If a district rep. fields enough concern and complaint over a single incident then he should be given a mechanism that allows him to deal with the problem so that it's fair for everyone. If the mechanism does not exist at all, then IMHO, there is neglect and the system should be changed. Again, i'm not asking for every little rider protest to be addressed by the scores of promoters, officials, et al involved in an event.

WarrenG wrote:The recollection of one of those riders is that the official he spoke to (may not have been Bob) ask him (the rider) if he intended to "race to win" and the rider said yes. It was after this question and answer that the officials' decision to allow them to race was made and they did in fact "race to win" because based on their conversation with the official they understood that to be okay.

Well, now I definitely question the character of that rider. How could he possibly think it was fair to race for the win with a advantage like that? Whether the official said it was ok or not, this guy has to use his brain and think for himself. He's not that new to racing if he's racing the 3's, sounds like he just flat out cheated. Instead of doing the right and fair thing, he took advantage of a poor decision and showed a lot of disrespect to his fellow riders. It was barely 40 degrees that morning, if anyone thinks that 40 minutes/15 miles less of that isn't much of an advantage, they're kidding themselves.

I think people have every right to be pissed off about this. However, as deserved as they may be, it's a little hard to demand suspensions or refunds because there are a lot of gray areas. I guess when we line up next time, we'll have to count each other, stop and take another count mid-race, and then do the same right after the finish. Maybe one rider can carry a cattle prod so if someone does decide to jump in a lap or 2 down, some sense can be shocked into them.

Peter.

Fear Itself wrote:
You're telling us that allowing riders to protest "after the fact" is bad because it will cause too much trouble and too much time to be wasted. However, no one actually doing the racing is agreeing with that take I don't think. It's the officials that feel this way for obvious reasons. It's more work for them.

Do you really want to see race results changed 6 months after the fact if riders could protest, and appeal after the fact. Would we have some kind of waiting period ( say 1 month) for riders to submit any kind of protest? Do promoters hold all prizes until after the protest period and then end up having to mail prizes after the post event protest period is over? If you allow prizes to be handed out on race day then what happens when a protest changes the results several days or weeks after the race? Would these protests also apply to basic results? Does this mean that the officials and promoters have to keep changing the results for several weeks after the race due to these post event protests?

It is much easier to deal with protests at the race on race day when you should have access to all the officials and riders involved. After the race day is over it is much harder to get information from riders and officials which slows down the whole protest process.

I assume the 2006 USCF clearly explains the lack of freelaps in a road race. But how many racers READ it or even carry a copy? Don't coaches and officials automatically receive one when they renew their license? Yet even after I've requested one from usacyling, our family with three racers have to labor through the pdf version (not very helpful when a question arises at the race site!)

Thus the riders may have not known, which doesn't excuse them, but the officials should've known the rule. What they couldn't know is how the late entrants would abuse the situation. We left one hour earlier then I thought was necessary just to be sure we arrived in time. And we did.

What about all that money that David Fuentes *won* while he was protesting his doping positive for like nine months? I imagine lots of folks would have liked the opportunity to make him give it back.

casey wrote:Fear Itself wrote:

However, like everyone has said, the rulebook needs to be ammended so it gives power to those who might affect this outcome in a more positive way. I don't think anyone here is calling for suspension, but we'd all like to see the placings reversed. According to Casey though, it's all or nothing. This is what's leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Out of the three - riders, ref., rulebook - it's clearly the rulebook that is the most f/d up.

Actually I don't think the USCF rule book needs changing. Believe me I have been involved in a situation where riders could protest after the fact ( in a non-USCF event). There was a situation where one rider hooked another in the final sprint. THe rider who threw the hook was relegated one place. The protests from the rider who was relegated went on for months and months. Way to much time was spent dealing with a fairly minor issue.

You're telling us that allowing riders to protest "after the fact" is bad because it will cause too much trouble and too much time to be wasted. However, no one actually doing the racing is agreeing with that take I don't think. It's the officials that feel this way for obvious reasons. It's more work for them.

Fear Itself wrote:

However, like everyone has said, the rulebook needs to be ammended so it gives power to those who might affect this outcome in a more positive way. I don't think anyone here is calling for suspension, but we'd all like to see the placings reversed. According to Casey though, it's all or nothing. This is what's leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Out of the three - riders, ref., rulebook - it's clearly the rulebook that is the most f/d up.

Actually I don't think the USCF rule book needs changing. Believe me I have been involved in a situation where riders could protest after the fact ( in a non-USCF event). There was a situation where one rider hooked another in the final sprint. THe rider who threw the hook was relegated one place. The protests from the rider who was relegated went on for months and months. Way to much time was spent dealing with a fairly minor issue.

Mad Axeman wrote:wirelessracer wrote:Ok my bad.
At the end of the day its only a dumb bike race. We aren't on the front page of the newspaper or anything.
But why have start times or set distances to races if we're not going to follow them. Thats pretty straightforward- :roll:

Wireless, don't appologize, you are in the right, even if you counted the number of riders incorrectly.

It's all very PC to want to put it behind like there is no harm done. But there is harm done, people paid for hotels, gas, entry fees, and everything else involved in the participation of this race, and they did not get a fair event.

The riders should get their race fees back, and it should come from the parties responsible. In my eyes, that is the riders in question.

I do not find fault with Robert, he tried to be a nice guy and got taken advantage of.

Ron

Here's what really, really pisses me off....

When I hear officials or anyone else from ncnca, usacycling, etal, etc. say "it can't be done". That is utter and total bull$hit. When they mouth these words, they are really saying "I won't do it" and not that "it can't be done". Is someone really telling me that there isn't a person high enough up to reverse a decision (even months after the fact if need be) and right a bad situation? Is the person that has this authority so high up, so important, and so beyond the grassroots idea of roadie racing that he just can't be bothered with trivial stuff like this? If that's the case, then he needs to either change his way of thinking or be replaced. I'm the last person in the world that is going to point out the shortcomings of a promoter or volunteer who is doing something positive for the racing community in NorCal, but if a person is making a living off of this and benefiting in someway through our fees, dollars, etc., then they need to be held accountable by us. I'm sick of hearing "I can't"! You can, but you won't.

This decision could certainly be reversed, but the people we pay good money to will refuse to help out here.

/rant

wirelessracer wrote:Ok my bad.
At the end of the day its only a dumb bike race. We aren't on the front page of the newspaper or anything.
But why have start times or set distances to races if we're not going to follow them. Thats pretty straightforward- :roll:

Wireless, don't appologize, you are in the right, even if you counted the number of riders incorrectly.

It's all very PC to want to put it behind like there is no harm done. But there is harm done, people paid for hotels, gas, entry fees, and everything else involved in the participation of this race, and they did not get a fair event.

The riders should get their race fees back, and it should come from the parties responsible. In my eyes, that is the riders in question.

I do not find fault with Robert, he tried to be a nice guy and got taken advantage of.

Ron

wirelessracer wrote:Ok my bad.
At the end of the day its only a dumb bike race. We aren't on the front page of the newspaper or anything.
But why have start times or set distances to races if we're not going to follow them. Thats pretty straightforward- :roll:

I think that everyone agrees with you. I'm only saying that this is an isolated incident and not a pattern of abuse or neglect. I happen to know the AV rider in question, and he's a good guy. If he thought he was stepping on anyone's toes, then he wouldn't have done it. He just didn't think it through clearly is all. I guarantee it doesn't happen again though. Let's not make unnecessary enemies here when it needn't be like that.

However, like everyone has said, the rulebook needs to be ammended so it gives power to those who might affect this outcome in a more positive way. I don't think anyone here is calling for suspension, but we'd all like to see the placings reversed. According to Casey though, it's all or nothing. This is what's leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Out of the three - riders, ref., rulebook - it's clearly the rulebook that is the most f/d up.

Ok my bad.
At the end of the day its only a dumb bike race. We aren't on the front page of the newspaper or anything.
But why have start times or set distances to races if we're not going to follow them. Thats pretty straightforward- :roll:

SanJoCycle wrote:From the Alto Velo Yahoo Group:

"We showed up late and after talking with the officials they were very kind and understanding and gave us a free lap, letting us race... When we jumped in to the pack there was a rider solo about two minutes up the road so I decided to warm up by pulling him back in."

Nice, you jump into a race late and decide to race negatively and pull back what could have been a winning move.
This AV rider severly altered the race and how it might have played out.

Protest period or not, there needs to be something done to set things right. Here is an idea, how about the AV rider give the rider he pulled back the $35.00 for the entry fee since he got robbed.

Ron

homsie wrote:wirelessracer wrote:I was in this race, and had no clue 4 riders from AV were allowed in on the second lap. .

I think that you need to re-read the thread....it was two riders, not 4 from AV that were allowed in. The other two raced the entire race and both of them finished on the podium.

True, but his point is that it is entirely possible that the participation of the late-arriving AV riders in the race affected both of the podiums in favor of AV. We can never know this for sure, but it's certainly possible. That is why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this one. By one riders own omission, he chased down a break single-handedly.

However, both AV and the ref have already come on this board to say that mistakes were made. What more can we ask? It's not like we're talking about 1000s of dollars here. This wasn't a pro race. The only thing at stake was ego, pride, and good times just like any other amateur race. It turned out unfortunate for everyone. I for one think that neither AV nor Bob will make the same mistake next time and that's plenty enough for me.

wirelessracer wrote:I was in this race, and had no clue 4 riders from AV were allowed in on the second lap. .

I think that you need to re-read the thread....it was two riders, not 4 from AV that were allowed in. The other two raced the entire race and both of them finished on the podium.

I was in this race, and had no clue 4 riders from AV were allowed in on the second lap. They absolutely affected the outcome of the race. How could they not. I feel cheated and ripped off. Bobs been doing this a long time how could he feel he did the right thing by letting these guys in the race. And yes I would have liked to have had 15 mile fresher legs. They absolutely changed the complexion of the race. The race started around 30 minutes late as it was, so if they missed the start BOO HOO, thats not my problem or the 30 or so guys that managed to get there on time. Why should we pay the price of these guys mistakes.
I think these guys should all lose their points on this race, and Bob should have his officials credentials suspended for 30 days for his indiscretion.
I would like to have my entry refunded back because this is a joke.

stpete300 wrote:[While I agree with the sentiment here, I would still question the character/actions of the cat.3 riders in Saturday's RR. If, like Bob L. said, they were instructed to not participate in the race, they either have very short memories or blatantly disregarded his instructions. .

The recollection of one of those riders is that the official he spoke to (may not have been Bob) ask him (the rider) if he intended to "race to win" and the rider said yes. It was after this question and answer that the officials' decision to allow them to race was made and they did in fact "race to win" because based on their conversation with the official they understood that to be okay.

The two AV guys being discussed here are relatively new to bike racing and all its customs and nuances. They have shown in other races that they are strong riders and I doubt that their ability to participate in the race as they did was improved by missing the first 15 miles of this 75 mile race.

In the end, mistakes were made by the riders and official(s) and this is unlikely to happen again, so I don't think there's any need to worry about it further. It's just one race out of many. Live and learn, and move on.

-Warren

Fear Itself wrote:
In a lot of ways, Alto Velo is in a no-win situation. When you're the biggest, baddest team then, by default, you become "the team everyone loves to hate". You're basically the Yankees of Nor-Cal racing. This means that lots of folks feel free to take shots at your club even when it's not warranted. So when a situation like this comes up and AV happens to be involved, folks feel justified and validated. In reality though, it's an inviable place to be as well. Every district has their Alto Velo. It's just part of sport. In fact, racing in this district wouldn't be near as satisfying if AV didn't exist. Can you imagine? I know folks do the same thing with Spine as well. Anyway, I have lots of cool friends on AV and their mere existence makes my hobby more fun.

Cheers.

While I agree with the sentiment here, I would still question the character/actions of the cat.3 riders in Saturday's RR. If, like Bob L. said, they were instructed to not participate in the race, they either have very short memories or blatantly disregarded his instructions. After finding out who the two were, I remember them both being very active right away on the second lap. Ultimately, Bob's decision to allow them into the race would not seem so bad had these two taken it upon themselves to be fair to the rest of the field like they should have. Personally, I don't think I would ever ask to be allowed into a RR 1 lap down, it would never occur to me. Sometimes things get in the way of doing what you hope to, be it snow in the mountains or a flat in a RR...life sort of sucks that way. It's a bit of a slap in the face to all the riders that spent the money, time and effort to get to Fresno on Friday night.

I also take issue with the idea that no one protested it, so nothing was done about it. There was really no way for riders to know what was happening. If the two were allowed to race, then it was incumbent on the officials to make sure the results did not reflect their participation, not the riders.

Hopefully, the situations of the last couple of weeks will be a good reminder to everyone to take a look at the rule book, talk about related issues within the teams and ask questions to those that know to avoid fun stuff like this. So far the racing has been great this year, and as always, the promoters, organizers, workers, and officials deserve a huge amount of praise for all their efforts.

Peter.

tcolwell wrote:Fear Itself wrote:I have to say though that it's tough keeping up with a club the size of AV. They have so many racers in so many categories.... so many different personalities. They had a rider almost get DQ'd at Snelling as well and their club took that very seriously. However, the rider in question that time certainly had no intent. I'm sure that AV will be discussing this amongst themselves in order to right the ship.

Thank you for your insight. AV is a very large club with many different types of people, all with slightly different perspectives, strengths, talents, etc. Ergo, there are many opportunities for differences of opinion and action, some of which are debatable (like this one).

The goal of the club leadership is to continue encouraging folks to race, and to always promote proper sportsmanship. We take concerns like this seriously and we are already talking about it in the background to determine how to use it to improve our overall sportmanship and image within the peloton.

I can assume with confidence that unfortunate issues will continue to come up, year after year. However, you have my promise, and that of the current executives, that we will continue to use those issues to raise awareness in the club as to the best way to be respected competitors.

Please continue to discuss this, and other, situations so that we can gain knowledge from your opinions. Please also keep in mind that your opinions are best received when shared in the positive light of education rather than the negative light of prosecution. And please be aware that not all of the information is necessarily available to everyone who "knows" the situation (i.e., there is additional information from the Snelling event which is much more supportive of the 4 "dq'ed" riders than has been expressed in this forum).

Sincerely,
Tracy Colwell
Webcor / Alto Velo (ex-president)

In a lot of ways, Alto Velo is in a no-win situation. When you're the biggest, baddest team then, by default, you become "the team everyone loves to hate". You're basically the Yankees of Nor-Cal racing. This means that lots of folks feel free to take shots at your club even when it's not warranted. So when a situation like this comes up and AV happens to be involved, folks feel justified and validated. In reality though, it's an inviable place to be as well. Every district has their Alto Velo. It's just part of sport. In fact, racing in this district wouldn't be near as satisfying if AV didn't exist. Can you imagine? I know folks do the same thing with Spine as well. Anyway, I have lots of cool friends on AV and their mere existence makes my hobby more fun.

Cheers.

Fear Itself wrote:I have to say though that it's tough keeping up with a club the size of AV. They have so many racers in so many categories.... so many different personalities. They had a rider almost get DQ'd at Snelling as well and their club took that very seriously. However, the rider in question that time certainly had no intent. I'm sure that AV will be discussing this amongst themselves in order to right the ship.

Thank you for your insight. AV is a very large club with many different types of people, all with slightly different perspectives, strengths, talents, etc. Ergo, there are many opportunities for differences of opinion and action, some of which are debatable (like this one).

The goal of the club leadership is to continue encouraging folks to race, and to always promote proper sportsmanship. We take concerns like this seriously and we are already talking about it in the background to determine how to use it to improve our overall sportmanship and image within the peloton.

I can assume with confidence that unfortunate issues will continue to come up, year after year. However, you have my promise, and that of the current executives, that we will continue to use those issues to raise awareness in the club as to the best way to be respected competitors.

Please continue to discuss this, and other, situations so that we can gain knowledge from your opinions. Please also keep in mind that your opinions are best received when shared in the positive light of education rather than the negative light of prosecution. And please be aware that not all of the information is necessarily available to everyone who "knows" the situation (i.e., there is additional information from the Snelling event which is much more supportive of the 4 "dq'ed" riders than has been expressed in this forum).

Sincerely,
Tracy Colwell
Webcor / Alto Velo (ex-president)

hokey smokes!!!!!! :shock:

As important as all this is :?

I have to go do a TT interval to American Idol :oops:

Its just a game. Its not always fair but its a game.

MS

Quote:Again it appears a poor decision was made to let the riders into the race in the first place, even if they were told they weren't eligible for prizes of places. Robert tried to be a nice guy and no good has come from it.

Well, obviously there was a misunderstanding, then. The riders readily described what happened in a public forum: they weren't trying to hide anything. Bob's an amazingly generous guy, and I am only one of literally thousands of people in his debt, but it doesn't change the fact the decision was the wrong one. Mistakes happen -- we all learn from them.

I've taken some flak for initiating this discussion, but I think it's important to air these things out. The issue isn't to assign blame, but to identify where things went wrong to make them better.

Dan

All disheartening to hear. Hopefully all of this isn’t an indication of what the rest of the season is going to be like.

And I haven’t seen it mentioned, but what about the guy in the Cat 4 Kearney Circuit Race with the loose rear fender falling off. What’s up with that?

Oh wait – that was me. :oops:

SWoo wrote:Sorry to hear about that problem in the 2's TT.

He did not earn any upgrade points from his time trial placing or his stage race placing because the stage race was based on points, not accumulated time.

quote]

SWOO

You are correct about the points but he did effect all 3 races this weekend. And at the same time riders who deserved a fair fight did not get it.

My teammate lost the overall omnium win because of the decision not to relegate this rider. Its not the end of the world but its not fair either.

On a side note, there are times when we riders get the benifit of the doubt. We should return that by playing fair.

MS

I got this from Robert Leibold who was the Chief Ref who made the unfortunate decision to let the two riders into the race

Quote: I was the official who allowed the two riders into the race, after explaining to them that they would not be able to collect prizes or points, nor to work in the race to affect their teammates. I did not realize that one of the riders did place; this should have been caught by the chief judge. No protest was made at the race nor following it to any official. This does not excuse the mistake made by myself in allowing the riders in. They had been thwarted by Pacheco Pass closure (snow) and had travelled a long way, but so did everyone else. No prize should have been awarded to either rider. My apologies for the effect on the race.
---Robert Leibold

OK so the riders were told they would not get to collect prizes or upgrade points before they were let into the race. From what Robert said it is clear he intended to just let the riders get in a ride and not be placed in the race. Knowing this it is disappointing that the riders collected collected the prize and placings without pointing out they were a lap down and not entitled to the places or prizes.

Again it appears a poor decision was made to let the riders into the race in the first place, even if they were told they weren't eligible for prizes of places. Robert tried to be a nice guy and no good has come from it.

Sorry to hear about that problem in the 2's TT.

That is weird about the time trial because the rules are pretty explicit about this situation and the official(s) still cut him some slack.

He did not earn any upgrade points from his time trial placing or his stage race placing because the stage race was based on points, not accumulated time.

Maybe we need to have some way to provide feedback for races/officials like we do for other services with suggestion boxes or something else. I can remember being able to give feedback on my professors in college.

I was fortunate enough to race early so I didn't get to see any of this go down,BUT in the 2's TT and RR we got strait out cheated.

Its hard because the rider is Super strong and deserves to be a 1. But in an effort to get his points he crossed over a line that he didn't need to.
He would have picked the points up another day when everything went right for him.

The officials on site were noted about this rider both times and both times it was let slide.

It is unfortunate but the fact remains that there are riders out there who would rather win than have class. I'm sure this guy thinks he is justified on some level and that he earned his way into the results all weekend.

But for me he is just another in a long line who think a top 10 is worth more than ethics.

Point is show up 10 mins late for a TT and your 10 mins late no matter who you say told you your start time. It is your responability.

Get a flat in a 90 mile RR its over.

Get behind a crash in a crit and dont go down but get gapped, dont take a free lap.

Just some things to think about.

Now on an up side, the racing was hard and fast. Nice to see so early in the season.

MS

I was in the RR in Fresno, and afterwards, was pretty surprised to find out that the two riders had been let in a lap down. i was even more surprised to find them listed in the "official" results in the top ten. I was still even further surprised when my questions about the situation to the official in question were met with annoyed, patronizing and thoughtless answers. She told me I was the only one to complain, it was past the protest period and that there was an announcement to the field as they came through on the first lap. Anyone who races knows that an announcement like that, made to a strung out field...doesn't really get heard. Most of the the other riders in the field had no idea of the situation. Given that she's supposed to be knowledgable about bike racing, being an official and all, I thought this was a pretty arbitrary, unfair, and thoughtless decision. I was also bothered by the way she choose to explain the whole thing to me, which was fairly rude and uncalled for. I wasn't sure it was worth wasting any time over, but given the response here, it's pretty clear it was a serious mistake on her part. I also think it was damn poor judgement on the AV riders part to take part in the race as they did. Yes, the official said they could race, but did they themselves ever stop to think if it was fair or not?

Peter

p.s. First chance I get, I'm using that "Car back!" trick...brilliant.

djconnel wrote:There's no "going along for the training" allowed within the rules, which specifically state, as Casey pointed out, that riders on different laps are not allowed to interact. To me, whether or not I would have behaved differently, the focus needs to be on the officials.

Dan

True enough about there being no "going along for the training" allowed within the rules, but there's no free lap in a road race allowed within the rules, either. So, I believe it's logical that, should a free lap be given within a road road, the burden of upholding the ethics proscribed by the rules devolves upon the riders involved.

On an unrelated note: I'll get you someday for that trike race, Mikey! (Not that I haven't yelled "car back!" and took off in a track race. I can only offer that we all had a laugh about it afterwards, and it was a training race.)

Fear Itself wrote:I don't question the character of the riders being discussed, but mostly just the judgement of the ref. If the ref says "you're in" then in my mind, you're in. There's no stepping halfway into a race. For that reason, the blame goes to the ref and not the AV riders although perhaps they were a little lacking in judgement on this one.

Well, Casey said he's going to talk to the refs in question, but I agree with FI on this one, that if the ref says you are in, then while an understanding of the rules is the responsibility of each rider, it is a bit too much to expect them to overrule officials when the official rules in a way favoriable to them and their team. I think we want racers to generally believe what officials tell them...

There's no "going along for the training" allowed within the rules, which specifically state, as Casey pointed out, that riders on different laps are not allowed to interact. To me, whether or not I would have behaved differently, the focus needs to be on the officials.

Dan

SWoo wrote:Fear Itself wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

Would you feel different if you instead finished in the pack, unable to bridge to the breakaway? :)

LOL. It's not lost on me. I don't get too emotional about this stuff one way or another. All I can do is control myself, and honestly, cheaters don't even get under my skin, not that i'm calling any of these people cheaters. Since we don't get paid, everyone is only racing for the glory, and they will find none if their win isn't earned. I raced aggressively in this one and made my own luck so I feel proud of my 5th even though I was hoping for a podium. Next time.

Fear Itself wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

Would you feel different if you instead finished in the pack, unable to bridge to the breakaway? :)

i remember the first time i got on a bike. well, actually it was a trike. It must have been when i was in pre-school or maybe kindygarden.

shynola ... this may be my earliest memory, now that i think on it. hmm.

anway, there was this circley-type thing painted on our asphault playground that we all road around on our trikey-bikes. i guess we had ourselves a nipper race, because what i remember is being in "2nd place" with the race coming down to the final moments. Up ahead was the kiddie winning. so close.

i remember, even back then, that i wanted to be the first across the line. so, in my urge to win ... i pulled out the only tool i thought i had ~ i yelled out, "hey x, wait ... wait ... i've got something to tell you"

i remember the kid looking back with a look of complete skepticism.

"wait, i've GOT to tell you something."

and the poor kid fell prey to this pre-schooler bit of psychological trickery. i remember quite clearly the look of weary acceptance as he stopped pedaling to hear just what i had to tell him.

and then i blew right past him for the "win."

and right as i overtook him, that immediate micro-second i passed him ... man, did i feel like a total sh*t. and i was a total sh*t.

i'm so glad i learned that lesson back then.

... and i still feel like a sh*t for doing that. and i'm still payin' him back.

SWoo wrote:Fear Itself wrote: They had a rider almost get DQ'd at Snelling as well and their club took that very seriously. However, the rider in question that time certainly had no intent.
What I heard second hand was that the moto ref made a transcription error of the numbers of the *four* riders that took a hella long time in the draft of another group and that instead of dq'ing the wrong riders, it was decided that no one would get dq'ed. Perhaps someone closer to the situation can clarify that as well.

Not only was I in the secondary break at Snelling that bridged up to the initial break of DQ'd riders, but I also talked to the moto ref who made the decision to disqualify as well as the head ref. who made the final judgement call to move everyone in question down a single place rather then DQ.

Briefly, the original breakaway foursome was helped not because they were drafting off of the Masters 1/2/3s, but because the Elite 4 was neutralized while they got to hammer along and get a bigger gap. They did get a little too close to the Masters field and integrated some. The moto ref told me that he instructed the riders to "stand down" but they ignored repeated requests. For that reason, he wrote down all of their numbers and DQ'd them. However, when he later read these numbers back to the head ref at registration, she heard two of the numbers incorrectly over the radios. Since they could not be sure that they were DQ'ing the proper riders in every circumstance, they decided to DQ none of the riders instead "to be fair". It should be noted that although a few of these riders were in the top 10, only one figured in the placings and none were on the podium.

I should also say that it is entirely possible that our break would not have stayed away had it not been for help from the original 4 riders who were DQ'd. In other words, I managed a placing, but would I have gottent his placing in other circumstances? Who knows. Either way, I certainly don't have any hard feelings about it, and no one was trying to be a bad sport here. They just lacked a little judgement is all.

Fear Itself wrote: They had a rider almost get DQ'd at Snelling as well and their club took that very seriously. However, the rider in question that time certainly had no intent.
What I heard second hand was that the moto ref made a transcription error of the numbers of the *four* riders that took a hella long time in the draft of another group and that instead of dq'ing the wrong riders, it was decided that no one would get dq'ed. Perhaps someone closer to the situation can clarify that as well.

SanJoCycle wrote:From the Alto Velo Yahoo Group:

"We showed up late and after talking with the officials they were very kind and understanding and gave us a free lap, letting us race... When we jumped in to the pack there was a rider solo about two minutes up the road so I decided to warm up by pulling him back in."

My Comments:

Personally I feel this it totally bogus and would like to know who the chief referee was and if this was indeed done under his supervision. The conditions of this race were atrocious and to deny the racers who endured the entire race a fair-race is unfathomable. As one of the competitors who endured the entire race I would like to impress upon who ever might have made this decision that this was totally un-fair to the racers already in the race and would like to know what I can to do help not have this happen again. It gives me great pain to think this may happen again in any other event I may be racing in.

LOL. I love how everyone, up until now, has skirted around mouthing the words "Alto Velo", with one poster even saying "twice as many guys in green" at one point. : ) Too funny. It's classy to refrain from calling people out on a messageboard, but if you say everything but the words themselves then it's the same thing after awhile.

I have to say though that it's tough keeping up with a club the size of AV. They have so many racers in so many categories.... so many different personalities. They had a rider almost get DQ'd at Snelling as well and their club took that very seriously. However, the rider in question that time certainly had no intent. I'm sure that AV will be discussing this amongst themselves in order to right the ship. I don't question the character of the riders being discussed, but mostly just the judgement of the ref. If the ref says "you're in" then in my mind, you're in. There's no stepping halfway into a race. For that reason, the blame goes to the ref and not the AV riders although perhaps they were a little lacking in judgement on this one.

Further, the rulebook needs to be discussed, disected, and changed if it cannot account for something like this happening without suspending the riders. The riders don't deserve the suspension, but they don't deserve the top10 results either. Their podium folks don't deserve the podium not because of their doing, but because by their teammates own words, he chased down a break from another team, thereby helping his fellow teammates. Not cool. JMHO.

From the Alto Velo Yahoo Group:

"We showed up late and after talking with the officials they were very kind and understanding and gave us a free lap, letting us race... When we jumped in to the pack there was a rider solo about two minutes up the road so I decided to warm up by pulling him back in."

My Comments:

Personally I feel this it totally bogus and would like to know who the chief referee was and if this was indeed done under his supervision. The conditions of this race were atrocious and to deny the racers who endured the entire race a fair-race is unfathomable. As one of the competitors who endured the entire race I would like to impress upon who ever might have made this decision that this was totally un-fair to the racers already in the race and would like to know what I can to do help not have this happen again. It gives me great pain to think this may happen again in any other event I may be racing in.

Since I haven't talked to any of the officials at the race yet I don't know which official(s) the riders talked to and what was said to the riders. If the Chief Judge didn't know that two riders in the race were a lap down how would the chief judge know to take those riders out of the results?

While it may seem to be a undo burden for the riders to know about the people who were a lap down and in the results that is still how the process works when the officials didn't take these riders out of the results.

I would think that based on simple morals and ethics the riders in question should have known that being a lap down didn't entitle them to be in contention for prizes of a top placing. No matter what the officials said the riders should have sat up at the end and just rolled across the line. When the riders were placed in the top 10 they should have notified the officials about the mistake. Just because someone is a bicycle racer doesn't mean that all morals and ethics just go out the window. Personally I think saying "of course they are bicycle racers and they are going to go for it no matter what is kind of like the old " The dog ate my homework excuse." For good or bad bicycle racing is mostly run by volunteers ( and yes even a fair number of officials fall into this category). volunteers are just like anyone else and they prefer to be liked and make other people happy when they can. Unfortunately this leads to things like letting a rider who has Cat 4 on their license into a Cat 3 race. Riders are suppose to know the rules and follow the rules. The problem is in this day and age to many people subscribe to the "It isn't cheating if you don't get caught" mentality.

The scorer has the responsibility to determine who completed the course, according to my reading of the rules. Obviously this task is made more challenging if other official(s) misrepresent the scope of their power.

Correction: James and Greg did the whole race and made the podium. My mistake. Two top ten spots were taken by the late racers.

Casey,

I am curious to the mechanics of how a protest could have even been filed in this case. Is it up to the riders to validate that the people who crossed the line also rolled off the line at the start of the race? Do racers need to audit race participants during race action to make sure that they aren't being chased down by ringers or late entries?

In this particular race, one racer lost a podium spot and another racer lost a top ten finish in a challenging race. The only people who knew that something was wrong were the officials, and they are there to make sure the race is fair. This situation did not involve hooking, bumping, impeding a riders line, taking an illegal feed or any of the usual antics that people will protest about after the race. In this race, the number of green uniforms just doubled after a lap and it probably wasn't noticed due to the rain and hail that was coming down on the pack.

If a racer gets put in a race, they are going to race. Some people have said that the late racers should have exercised moderation. This is an almost impossible request. Most racers have a hard time exercising restraint during a rest day ride when a fast group ride rolls by.

I don't think the two guys should be suspended, but rescinding their points and any winnings to the guys who got bumped from their rightful placements would be a nice start.

No the riders in question never should have been allowed to ride in the race if they were a lap down. Actually they could have been allowed to chase when they showed up late.

Officials can't grant a free lap in a road race. Note according to the rules there are either Crits ( laps of 3 miles or less) or road races ( laps of more than 3 miles) there is no such creature as a circuit race under the rules.

In road races riders on different laps can't work together so legally the riders in questions couldn't even sit in the back of the pack. Unlike in Crits in road races riders have to complete the entire distance in order to get an official finish. Only after the first rider has finished can the Chief Ref excuse a rider from completing the distance if, 1) it is clear the rider would get the same place if they did complete the distance or 2) no other riders are left on the course.

Unfortunately since the 15 minute protest period has come and gone there is no way to change or correct the results at this point. I suppose some really ticked of Cat 3 rider could submit a complaint asking for a suspension of the rider in question. There are probably a number of grounds for possible suspension.

Yes the officials involved will be talked to about the situation.