gbduro

huge if true.

Seems the correct decision but doesn’t seem fair to give him the ok (as it’s been suggested) and then go back on it. I suspect there’s a bit more to the story.

They even posted…

1 Attachment

Yes, unless someone blatantly cheats, these decisions are always a judgement call. Sounds like the initial view was revised after it was given more thought. But it's better to make the right call than to feel obliged to stick by the wrong call made in a rush.

Hard on him but I expect he won't be complaining - will probably just go back next year and do it faster. It was still a great ride and everyone will recognise it as such.

But it's better to make the right call than to feel obliged to stick by the wrong call made in a rush

Yep, good point.

Quite surprised he thought it ok. Also surprised he didn't just finish even if dq.

Rc org have form for bad decision making. But we all make mistakes.

So he checked with the organiser, who said it was ok, unless further information came to light seems pretty rough to go back on a decision and DQ

Yeh that’s abit off.

Totally agree.

Seems bloody harsh to me.

More Beaumont bashing, I thought his RTW book was a dreadful bore. He did little else than whine about most things.

He reminds me of that other popinjay Millar an odious streak of a man whom I shan't forgive for making that fucking awful Time Trial film.

*meanders off to the hate thread where I'm happiest.

Bad initial decision, certainly. Who would think it would be ok to borrow a bike rather than get your own fixed? If it's OK to do that - what's next? Got a sore leg, no problem, a trail angel will sub in for the last 100k...!

I would certainly criticise them for giving him initial approval to do it, but I don't know exactly what they said - eg was it 'subject to confirmation', etc. I wouldn't criticise them for making the correct call on reflection rather than doubling down on an error.

Interested to know about their form for bad decision making. I feel that Cotsduro should have taken place a week later but as you say, we all make mistakes.

It’s obviously difficult not knowing the full circumstance but bad officiating is part of sport. My issue is if they ok it and then go back on it, with nothing changed, the participant can’t undo their action.

There is also a third option where they acknowledge they made a bad decision but accept their original ruling.

That third option would be pretty unsatisfactory.

One of the issues is that we are talking about officiating a discipline where there are no established laws, hence the degree of judgement.

I’d disagree it’s how to learn and improve on mistakes.

That’s on the event and community.
I think it’s actually that many of the rules require large amounts of interpretation. Which is why a participant would make contact with the organiser?

Lots of interpretation is what you end up with if you want to say that you have only ten rules that can be written on the back of a beermat.

I had a conversation a while ago with a guy who was saying that it showed that ultra-racing was at the very early stage and that, eventually, it would have to evolve to having long lists of rules like other types of bike racing, or it would become chaos. This suggests he might have been right.

If there had been a rule about no bike swaps there would have been no issue here.

Yeah I’d agree. The trail angel thing, to a newbie has always seemed problematic.
That said I can also see how in the more extreme races/ environments particularly for accommodation.

Perhaps a set of agreed rules with an exemption list, pertinent to the event, would be a suitable way forward but that’s no small task

Yes, it needs people to sit down and agree the rules, which means meetings, committees, nominations and elections, and all the other associated - but necessary - bureaucracy!

You've only got to look at the enduro format in mtb'ing to see the growing pains that a new discipline has to go through.

As an example of interpretation and spirit, I think back to Josh Ibbet in last year's event where he had to decide whether seeking shelter under a bridge contravened the rules. Technically it did so he pressed on. As with all these things, it would have been a thankless call for the organisers if he did stop.

Popinjay...thank you for this word :)

decide whether seeking shelter under a bridge contravened the rules. Technically it did

What rule is (was) that breaking?

It was a different set of rules last year. Not familiar with them myself but I think Josh discussed it in the Overland podcast

I can't remember the wording but, last year, they weren't allowed to enter any buildings. I guess a bridge, as a man made structure, was included in that.

Seems quite a challenging rule. Passing through any bridge would involve entering then exiting the "building" by that definition.

exactly this.

Enter, pass through...same but different. Therein lies the challenge for the organiser - drawing up a set of rules that avoid ambiguity. At least it gives us something to debate!