IACO
Comments
-
PMSL as this is amusing at so many levels ...
i was engaged in a thread only last week with someone adamantly telling me that in no sense were sportifs races ... because ... er.... they didn't carry BCF points?
if it looks like a duck ...
any cycling event where people are tyring to beat one another, or race against the clock, is a race. legal or not.
IMO the rapid growth of sportifs means that they are, at some point, likely to come in for criticism from locals and potentially will be blocked by police. that is very sad, but more a reflection of a crap country than anything else.
the "authorities" will, however, be in a bit of a quandary when it becomes apparent in August that the only sport the UK is any good at is cycling
0 -
Sledder wrote:Worthy sentiments Nickwill, but try Googling Cyclosport and you will see why four of the founder members have resigned:
Cyclosport.org
The Regulatory Body for UK Cyclosportives ... The MEGA is one the hardest sportives in the UK. It has two routes to suit more abilities. ...
www.cyclosport.org/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
When matters are taken out of our hands and operated on a personal agenda without consultation, it's time to abandon ship
Those of us with common interests in promoting quality events will no doubt continue to follow the original IACO code and seek to create a series for the benefit of charities and riders alike.
Jonnie Woodall
Gran Fondo Cymru
I can quite see why you have all left. To have someone pusuing a personal agenda whilst backing it with the good names of respected organisers like yourselves is beyond the pale.
I'm hoping, having read the statement, that there is an acceptance that things must change, and that the remaining members of IACO will set the more limited agenda. If that is not the case then I think IACO/ Cyclosport is doomed. I also think that it is important that people who have been ejected from the fold, are offered the hand of friendship. Bridges also need to be built with British Cycling.
Maybe I am reading too much into the statement, and being naive .Only time will tell0 -
The whole thing needs a Select Committee inquiry ... though I would first like to see a series of sub-committees agree on a terms of reference for a call for evidence. Eventually, I'd hope we get a Royal Commission established to give this one the thorough treatment it merits.0
-
I have posted the following on IACO/Cyclosport. Whether it remains there should tell us to what extent things have really changed.
'In this new restructured era,I think that we need some clarification about what circumstances justify suspension of membership of the site. I think it's important that healthy debate is allowed, which on occasions will differ from what has been the party line.
The stifling of debate, and the exclusion of fellow sportive riders was a topic of regular discussion on the White Rose Classic at the weekend. Will people be allowed to express divergent views on the forum, from now on, without fear of having their login blocked?
Will there be some consideration given to welcoming back some of the disappeared?
I also have to ask, who will be responsible for moderating the forum from now on?
Will all press statements, henceforth, be approved by the IACO stakeholders?'0 -
the way this is heading the only man with sufficient gravitas to bring some kind of reconciliation is Henry Kissinger ... does anyone have an "in" to Kissinger's office?0
-
It would also help if British Cycling could put more into sportives. I see that the link from the BC page now goes directly to Everyday Cycling. Here there is no attempt to differentiate between sportives and fun or charity rides. You can see why Cyclosport has come about - it has been a great resource for information about sportives. It's a shame that it seems to have been pursuing additional agendas. But BC need to take stock of the popularity of sportives, how they are complementary to the racing scene, and how they are bringing more people into cycling and cycling clubs.0
-
wildmoustache wrote:PMSL as this is amusing at so many levels ...
i was engaged in a thread only last week with someone adamantly telling me that in no sense were sportifs races ... because ... er.... they didn't carry BCF points?
if it looks like a duck ...
any cycling event where people are tyring to beat one another, or race against the clock, is a race. legal or not.
IMO the rapid growth of sportifs means that they are, at some point, likely to come in for criticism from locals and potentially will be blocked by police. that is very sad, but more a reflection of a crap country than anything else.
the "authorities" will, however, be in a bit of a quandary when it becomes apparent in August that the only sport the UK is any good at is cycling
Hang on, my kids "race" each other but its between them and not explicit. I "race" my training mates to the top of some climbs, so yes you are right every time 2 or more competitive people ride with each other they will on occasions try to beat each other. But this definition cannot preclude challenege events that are not a explicit race! The post by Southern Sportive expains it very clearly, so I cannot see why there is no room for this type of event, however, I agree that if the numbers of participants increase significantly or should a fatality occur then there is always the chance that the local authorities simply won't allow them to take place, and we will all have to revert back to outprinting each other for lamp post numer 312.....0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:wildmoustache wrote:PMSL as this is amusing at so many levels ...
i was engaged in a thread only last week with someone adamantly telling me that in no sense were sportifs races ... because ... er.... they didn't carry BCF points?
if it looks like a duck ...
any cycling event where people are tyring to beat one another, or race against the clock, is a race. legal or not.
IMO the rapid growth of sportifs means that they are, at some point, likely to come in for criticism from locals and potentially will be blocked by police. that is very sad, but more a reflection of a crap country than anything else.
the "authorities" will, however, be in a bit of a quandary when it becomes apparent in August that the only sport the UK is any good at is cycling
Hang on, my kids "race" each other but its between them and not explicit. I "race" my training mates to the top of some climbs, so yes you are right every time 2 or more competitive people ride with each other they will on occasions try to beat each other. But this definition cannot preclude challenege events that are not a explicit race! The post by Southern Sportive expains it very clearly, so I cannot see why there is no room for this type of event, however, I agree that if the numbers of participants increase significantly or should a fatality occur then there is always the chance that the local authorities simply won't allow them to take place, and we will all have to revert back to outprinting each other for lamp post numer 312.....
ah ... who will be the judge of the implicit or explicit races ??? will the police be able to tell the difference between 500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles adorned with timing chips and the two children racing one another ?
seriously, anything that poses a risk and gets popular risks being stamped on rather than managed and encouraged because it's actually generally a good thing ... i fear that's where we might be heading but hope not.0 -
wildmoustache wrote:
ah ... who will be the judge of the implicit or explicit races ??? will the police be able to tell the difference between 500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles adorned with timing chips and the two children racing one another ?
That would be decided in a court of law, based on the circumstances of a specific incident that has resulted in a legal action. And, depending on the outcome, it could set a legal precedent that affects future events.
As I posted on the Cyclosport forum earlier, the way individual riders think on the day is not really the issue here. The way the event is presented, is.
The definition of a race does not come down to the presence of timing. Timing a rider for their own personal information is currently accepted by regulatory bodies, insurers and the authorities alike, as is publishing those times in a non race-like order (ie. alphabetically or by entry number).
A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders. Here's how it falls to us as event organisers to behave. If we stipulate clearly that our event is not a race and introduce no racing incentives into our structure, then, should any rider choose to treat our event as a race off their own bat and fall foul of the law in the process, that rider is on their own. They have placed themselves outside of our event structure and are liable for their own actions. However, if we build competitive elements into the structure of our event, such as say, awarding the title of 'Victor Ludorum' to the fastest riders in each class and even putting up prizes for those riders, then all that changes. In that instance, should a rider pursuing those goals (that we have set) fall foul of the law or cause an accident, then we become liable. Our insurance would be void and we would most probably lose our homes in the ensuing settlement.
The Highclere event was well over that line in it's promotion, far more so than any other event I'm aware of. And of course, as well as running risks for themselves, a claim under those conditions could have implications for the way all events are treated and could place far tighter restrictions on us than we currently have.
The precise legal definition of what constitutes a race is always going to a little grey and always subject to the next legal precedent. The best way for us to continue to enjoy the freedom we currently have is not to keep our heads down and hope nobody notices, it is stay implicitly on the right side of the line, and be open as to just why it is important to do so.
Oh, and as far as "500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles" goes - as someone who has stood on the finish line of an awful lot of cycle events, in a 500 rider sportive I'd be surprised if as many as 30 riders actually considered themselves (erroneously) to be "racing". The rest would fall somewhere along a sliding scale from trying for the best time they can, through just having a good days ride, to happy just to complete the course. And that level of variety and inclusivity is what makes cyclosportives so great.Martin
trailbreak.co.uk
southernsportive.com0 -
SouthernSportive wrote:wildmoustache wrote:
ah ... who will be the judge of the implicit or explicit races ??? will the police be able to tell the difference between 500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles adorned with timing chips and the two children racing one another ?
That would be decided in a court of law, based on the circumstances of a specific incident that has resulted in a legal action. And, depending on the outcome, it could set a legal precedent that affects future events.
As I posted on the Cyclosport forum earlier, the way individual riders think on the day is not really the issue here. The way the event is presented, is.
The definition of a race does not come down to the presence of timing. Timing a rider for their own personal information is currently accepted by regulatory bodies, insurers and the authorities alike, as is publishing those times in a non race-like order (ie. alphabetically or by entry number).
A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders. Here's how it falls to us as event organisers to behave. If we stipulate clearly that our event is not a race and introduce no racing incentives into our structure, then, should any rider choose to treat our event as a race off their own bat and fall foul of the law in the process, that rider is on their own. They have placed themselves outside of our event structure and are liable for their own actions. However, if we build competitive elements into the structure of our event, such as say, awarding the title of 'Victor Ludorum' to the fastest riders in each class and even putting up prizes for those riders, then all that changes. In that instance, should a rider pursuing those goals (that we have set) fall foul of the law or cause an accident, then we become liable. Our insurance would be void and we would most probably lose our homes in the ensuing settlement.
The Highclere event was well over that line in it's promotion, far more so than any other event I'm aware of. And of course, as well as running risks for themselves, a claim under those conditions could have implications for the way all events are treated and could place far tighter restrictions on us than we currently have.
The precise legal definition of what constitutes a race is always going to a little grey and always subject to the next legal precedent. The best way for us to continue to enjoy the freedom we currently have is not to keep our heads down and hope nobody notices, it is stay implicitly on the right side of the line, and be open as to just why it is important to do so.
Oh, and as far as "500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles" goes - as someone who has stood on the finish line of an awful lot of cycle events, in a 500 rider sportive I'd be surprised if as many as 30 riders actually considered themselves (erroneously) to be "racing". The rest would fall somewhere along a sliding scale from trying for the best time they can, through just having a good days ride, to happy just to complete the course. And that level of variety and inclusivity is what makes cyclosportives so great.
Exactly my point some time ago, doesnt help when people sart moaning openly about (the lack of) race etiquette by some participants. Better to say something on the day based on your judgement of is it an experiened clubman or a beginner who might not know what "through and off" means.0 -
I think that some people need to take a reality check.
The Highclere sportive has not changed it's promotion of 'awarding' those who achieved the greatest time under the Gold standard for their age group for the past 3 years, that was until last week... all the people who have been complaining seem to have been unaware as to what has taken place in the past 2 runnings of the event. Which is a little surprising for Cyclosport.org who have been bigging up the event in the past and have had the event in their calendar for the past 3 years. That was until last week a few days before the event, when they sent out their rather sanctimonious little email. To be fair maybe it was only last week that they decided for the first time to click on the www.cyclegb.co.uk website link that has been their website for the past 2 years and read the blurb on the Highclere sportive....they must have been shocked to realise that the 'Best time under the Gold Standard Time 2007' had been posted on the website and available to anyone with a computer for the past year!...
... lucky they spotted it just in time and 4 days before the 2008 event/race.
Bear in mind the competitive element of this event appears to be around the 'prestige' of your name appearing on the cyclegb.co.uk website after the event as the best finisher under the Gold standard (does this meagre 'reward' really turn the event into a race?)...As a participant to be in a 'competitive race' against other participants you would a) have to be in the same starting group with someone you could race against... which is an element in any sportive... but how do you know that the 'Gold Standard Achiever is in your group?', unlikely as there were approx 400 starters for the 200km on Sunday and b) guess the approximate age of your opponent in the aforesaid group to know they were going for the same Gold standard as you.
The alternative is that entrants were 'racing' to achieve the best time they could on the day and maybe get under a preset time standard for the event - this would apply to 95% of sportives which are timed events with preset Gold/Silver/Bronze standards.0 -
juggler wrote:I think that some people need to take a reality check.
As a participant to be in a 'competitive race' against other participants you would a) have to be in the same starting group with someone you could race against... which is an element in any sportive... but how do you know that the 'Gold Standard Achiever is in your group?', unlikely as there were approx 400 starters for the 200km on Sunday and b) guess the approximate age of your opponent in the aforesaid group to know they were going for the same Gold standard as you.
.
I agree with the need for a reality check but think the issue is a little more complicated than you suggest. I have done Highclere the last 3 years plus many other sportives and seen enough "racing" behaviour to make me raise this subject several times over past year, here and on cyclosport forum.
http://www.cyclosport.org/forum/reply.aspx?fid=26&tid=968
Last week I did the Highclere and it was clear that at the front of the ride people were racing in the sense that
- they wanted to go as fast a time as possible (not simply just finish or finish within gold/silver target)
- they wanted to get as high up the leader board as possible
How people start doesnt make a difference. You can race against others without racing alongside them. That is what a time trial is all about. And fastest times on Sunday were recorded by pairs effectively riding event as 2 up time trial.
I would argue this way of racing on a sportive is actually worse than having a real race as it means pressure/taking risks all the time as you dont know what others are doing. So temptation is there to skip lights etc. because you are worried that if you stop will lost time on those that dont. (I know of at least one fast twosome that came a cropper Sunday.)
I dont object to the idea of racing. Some days, I like to ride fast as well and my ideal would be to have an option to ride an event as close to race as possible. Did the Tour of Ireland and that came pretty close to letting this happen (crucially if you wanted, you opted in or out, those wanting an easy ride or just to get to end had groups as well. Ironically it was also the event where your finishing time actually meant very little due to the way the groups/controls were marshalled (though think that may change next year.)
But until this happens in an explicit way I would like to remove all possibility of sportives being treated as races. To me that means keep timing private, no publication of overall times (in order or not). Letting the individual rider know their time and standard is enough.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
This is a Statement issued by Cyclosport (IACO) yesterday, and I must say that I'm very happy with its content, it looks as if all involved have taken notice at recent sad events and have re-organised the structure for more open conversation:-
Rest assured I am in the process of reviewing the forum policy. I will in future then be responsible for implementing the policy.
And yes that will include reinstating people who have been removed.
So another guy is going to be moderator for the forum, now all we need is for all cycling parties to start working with eachother....
And I reckon theres a real nice article to maybe start the process....Me and a few friends did the Ryedale Rumble Reccy for BC Yorkshire in April, I've got the article up on my Blog in Cyclosport and Mark has added lots of pictures...the article looks fantastic and its now on the front page of Cyclosport...so a now a major BC Yorkshire event is getting full on coverage on Cyclosport....not toi mention all the other front page articles on the superb White Rose we did on Sunday.
I love the Cyclosport website, its so informative, and I wish it huge success, and I reckon all organisers will benefit from it aswell, all they have to do is learn to work and respect eachother.0 -
SouthernSportive wrote:wildmoustache wrote:
ah ... who will be the judge of the implicit or explicit races ??? will the police be able to tell the difference between 500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles adorned with timing chips and the two children racing one another ?
That would be decided in a court of law, based on the circumstances of a specific incident that has resulted in a legal action. And, depending on the outcome, it could set a legal precedent that affects future events.
As I posted on the Cyclosport forum earlier, the way individual riders think on the day is not really the issue here. The way the event is presented, is.
The definition of a race does not come down to the presence of timing. Timing a rider for their own personal information is currently accepted by regulatory bodies, insurers and the authorities alike, as is publishing those times in a non race-like order (ie. alphabetically or by entry number).
A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders. Here's how it falls to us as event organisers to behave. If we stipulate clearly that our event is not a race and introduce no racing incentives into our structure, then, should any rider choose to treat our event as a race off their own bat and fall foul of the law in the process, that rider is on their own. They have placed themselves outside of our event structure and are liable for their own actions. However, if we build competitive elements into the structure of our event, such as say, awarding the title of 'Victor Ludorum' to the fastest riders in each class and even putting up prizes for those riders, then all that changes. In that instance, should a rider pursuing those goals (that we have set) fall foul of the law or cause an accident, then we become liable. Our insurance would be void and we would most probably lose our homes in the ensuing settlement.
The Highclere event was well over that line in it's promotion, far more so than any other event I'm aware of. And of course, as well as running risks for themselves, a claim under those conditions could have implications for the way all events are treated and could place far tighter restrictions on us than we currently have.
The precise legal definition of what constitutes a race is always going to a little grey and always subject to the next legal precedent. The best way for us to continue to enjoy the freedom we currently have is not to keep our heads down and hope nobody notices, it is stay implicitly on the right side of the line, and be open as to just why it is important to do so.
Oh, and as far as "500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles" goes - as someone who has stood on the finish line of an awful lot of cycle events, in a 500 rider sportive I'd be surprised if as many as 30 riders actually considered themselves (erroneously) to be "racing". The rest would fall somewhere along a sliding scale from trying for the best time they can, through just having a good days ride, to happy just to complete the course. And that level of variety and inclusivity is what makes cyclosportives so great.
You say "A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders." ... so, if for argument's sake we agree that to be a definition, are you saying that this objective is absent at many sportifs? I've ridden about 40 UK sportifs and can't recall one where at least some riders didnt' want to ride faster than other riders. Ergo, by your definition, these were all races ...
What about the Tour of Wessex? Does the award of gold, silver, bronze awards by time, and the presentation of results by time not fall inside your definition of race?
What about London - Paris ... organised teams competing for prizes, sprints, KoMs, overall leader's jersey and so on. Is that a race.
You get the picture ... many, many of the sportifs in the UK have these elements. Are they NOT races simply if the organisers choose to overlay all these ostensibly race-like elements with the health warning "this is not a race" ??
On your final point ... you completely fail to grasp how race-like ANY sportif looks to the layman / driver/ pedestrian.0 -
SouthernSportive wrote:wildmoustache wrote:
ah ... who will be the judge of the implicit or explicit races ??? will the police be able to tell the difference between 500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles adorned with timing chips and the two children racing one another ?
That would be decided in a court of law, based on the circumstances of a specific incident that has resulted in a legal action. And, depending on the outcome, it could set a legal precedent that affects future events.
As I posted on the Cyclosport forum earlier, the way individual riders think on the day is not really the issue here. The way the event is presented, is.
The definition of a race does not come down to the presence of timing. Timing a rider for their own personal information is currently accepted by regulatory bodies, insurers and the authorities alike, as is publishing those times in a non race-like order (ie. alphabetically or by entry number).
A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders. Here's how it falls to us as event organisers to behave. If we stipulate clearly that our event is not a race and introduce no racing incentives into our structure, then, should any rider choose to treat our event as a race off their own bat and fall foul of the law in the process, that rider is on their own. They have placed themselves outside of our event structure and are liable for their own actions. However, if we build competitive elements into the structure of our event, such as say, awarding the title of 'Victor Ludorum' to the fastest riders in each class and even putting up prizes for those riders, then all that changes. In that instance, should a rider pursuing those goals (that we have set) fall foul of the law or cause an accident, then we become liable. Our insurance would be void and we would most probably lose our homes in the ensuing settlement.
The Highclere event was well over that line in it's promotion, far more so than any other event I'm aware of. And of course, as well as running risks for themselves, a claim under those conditions could have implications for the way all events are treated and could place far tighter restrictions on us than we currently have.
The precise legal definition of what constitutes a race is always going to a little grey and always subject to the next legal precedent. The best way for us to continue to enjoy the freedom we currently have is not to keep our heads down and hope nobody notices, it is stay implicitly on the right side of the line, and be open as to just why it is important to do so.
Oh, and as far as "500 odd cyclists hammering around blind corners on high-end carbon fibre bicycles" goes - as someone who has stood on the finish line of an awful lot of cycle events, in a 500 rider sportive I'd be surprised if as many as 30 riders actually considered themselves (erroneously) to be "racing". The rest would fall somewhere along a sliding scale from trying for the best time they can, through just having a good days ride, to happy just to complete the course. And that level of variety and inclusivity is what makes cyclosportives so great.
You say "A race is defined by an objective to ride faster than other riders." ... so, if for argument's sake we agree that to be a definition, are you saying that this objective is absent at many sportifs? I've ridden about 40 UK sportifs and can't recall one where at least some riders didnt' want to ride faster than other riders. Ergo, by your definition, these were all races ...
What about the Tour of Wessex? Does the award of gold, silver, bronze awards by time, and the presentation of results by time not fall inside your definition of race?
What about London - Paris ... organised teams competing for prizes, sprints, KoMs, overall leader's jersey and so on. Is that a race?
You get the picture ... many, many of the sportifs in the UK have these elements. Are they NOT races simply if the organisers choose to overlay all these ostensibly race-like elements with the health warning "this is not a race" ??
On your final point ... you completely fail to grasp how race-like ANY sportif looks to the layman / driver/ pedestrian.0 -
Juggler - I think there are two potentially serious issues.
1. Liability.
- If the organiser ends up running an unlicensed race, they're probably breaking the law AND invalidating their insurance. Just because Highclere haven't changed doesn't mean they haven't always been wrong.
- If some muppet rides without due care and attention and gets mashed, can they sue the organiser or not ? I reckon the answer is, they can probably have a go and if the insurance company decides that the organiser wasn't working within the terms of their cover, they'll decline to get involved.
2. Public nuisance.
If the riders create a nusiance so that too many Mr Angry of Tunbridge Wells get irate, then the local authorities are less likely to allow future events.0 -
What do the insurers say about what constitutes racing? If an event can get insurance on the basis they publish finishing times then I can't see a problem, if they can award prizes for fastest finisher and still get insurance on that basis I don't see a problem. It seems to me to be purely a practical problem of what you can get insurance for. If insurers are happy with results being published - even if it isn't in finishing order - then why wouldn't we want that information. After all knowing how quickly you finished a course is pretty meaningless unless you know how fast everyone else finished it.
Arguing whether or not sportives are races or not is just semantics - clearly they are not road races in that they don't resemble the sport of road racing to anyone who knows anything about it. I don't call them races but I accept people taking part in them may be racing each other - just as commuters on bikes race each other to work or kids race each other to school.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:What do the insurers say about what constitutes racing? If an event can get insurance on the basis they publish finishing times then I can't see a problem, if they can award prizes for fastest finisher and still get insurance on that basis I don't see a problem. It seems to me to be purely a practical problem of what you can get insurance for. If insurers are happy with results being published - even if it isn't in finishing order - then why wouldn't we want that information. After all knowing how quickly you finished a course is pretty meaningless unless you know how fast everyone else finished it.
Arguing whether or not sportives are races or not is just semantics - clearly they are not road races in that they don't resemble the sport of road racing to anyone who knows anything about it. I don't call them races but I accept people taking part in them may be racing each other - just as commuters on bikes race each other to work or kids race each other to school.
Well put Tom. I think the unknown here (and the worry) is how a court might interpret a sportif. As stated above I think they often have the essential ingredients of a race, even if they are clearly not British Cycling licensed races.
Given the sportif scene is developing and becoming more competitive I suspect organisers, and possibly also insurers, might be re-thinking whether their original confidence that they were not in any sense races will stand up in court one day.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:What do the insurers say about what constitutes racing? If an event can get insurance on the basis they publish finishing times then I can't see a problem, if they can award prizes for fastest finisher and still get insurance on that basis I don't see a problem. It seems to me to be purely a practical problem of what you can get insurance for. If insurers are happy with results being published - even if it isn't in finishing order - then why wouldn't we want that information. After all knowing how quickly you finished a course is pretty meaningless unless you know how fast everyone else finished it.
Arguing whether or not sportives are races or not is just semantics - clearly they are not road races in that they don't resemble the sport of road racing to anyone who knows anything about it. I don't call them races but I accept people taking part in them may be racing each other - just as commuters on bikes race each other to work or kids race each other to school.
Spot on.0 -
wildmoustache wrote:What about the Tour of Wessex? Does the award of gold, silver, bronze awards by time, and the presentation of results by time not fall inside your definition of race?
I did Wessex last year and was alarmed that the pre-event blurb they sent-out referred to bike numbers as 'race numbers' and to the start/finish as 'race HQ'.
That was pushing it w-a-y too far in my opinion, giving the impression to riders it was a race much more so than Highclear's victor ludorum, or gold/silver times on most sportives.
Perhaps in others' opinions too, as I had a look at the site this year and downloaded the entrants' pack : references to 'race' had nowdisappeared, instead there was the usual 'this is not a race, it is a non-competetive event on the public highway, subject to usual road traffic regulations'.
Either someone had had a word with Pendragon, or maybe they'd reconsidered it themselves, or maybe (until it was cancelled) they had a 'real, proper' race as well as the sportive.wildmoustache wrote:On your final point ... you completely fail to grasp how race-like ANY sportif looks to the layman / driver/ pedestrian.
Ab-so-bloody-lutely !
If I were one of those walkers you meet on county lanes on sportives, or a horse rider, or motorist coming face-to-face with riders on a blind bend, or just someone sitting in my garden in a country village on a sportive route
And the aforesaid '500 riders on top-end carbon bikes came hammering through' - many of them dressed in club or team race kit and with numbers on the fronts of their bikes - I'd refer to it as a 'bike race'.
If we're not careful - and 'racing' means we're not being - then sooner or later someone will eventually be hurt or killed, a rider or maybe pedestrian or horserider hit by a rider, or a motorist trying to avoid a rider, and I can just picture the outrage in the Daily Mail...
edit : yes, and as you say, would the Daily Mail-reading, middle-class, middle-aged, Middle England judge think it was a race ?0 -
Here's my 2d. From my very non-expert viewpoint, I think some comments are getting overly caught up in a 'what would Joe Public think' discussion. Fortunately this is not how the law works (eg. we don't convict people based on what the Daily Mail thinks) - if the worst comes to the worst, a jury decides based on a judges direction on the law of the land.
Re' racing on the highway, isn't there basically two main types (ignoring handicap races)?
1. A group race where everyone starts at once and you know if you are 'leading' because everyone is behind you. Almost all Sportives do not have mass starts. Hence you have no idea if you are 'leading'. The guy next to you may have started at any time. Only if you decide to start at the same time as someone else and turn it into your 'own race' do you know relative positions - as has been previously mentioned this is then a choice of individuals to ride in this manner. In a Sportive, excluding this 'individuals choice' the only 'race' you are having is a personal one against the clock or the distance.
2. A time trial. On the face of it, and at a stretch, possibly you could think of a Sportive as a very large and long time trial. However, there are significant differences such as random spacing and no rules on drafting (or anything apart from safety matters really) so it really isn't a time trial in the classic definition.
It does really seem to boil down to a personal challenge either to complete it, or against the clock based on you own goals.
(All the surrounding talk of Insurance has prompted some Q's in my mind, but I'll raise them in a new thread)Why the name? Like the Hobbit I don't shave my legs0 -
bilbo - you have some interesting points there and I look forward to seeing the other thread.
What I think andywrx and I were getting at is that it appears there is a concern about the legal grey area between what is and what isn't a race. Unless anyone can reference any Acts of Parliament or well-established legal precedents here ...?
If sportif organisers are happy that what they are doing is covered by their insurance then great, but the concern (and perhaps it's initially the insurers' concern, though it would ultimately impact events) must be precisely the Daily Mail reading judge who determines that ... following some incident ... the essential elements of a bicycle race were present in the sportif in question ... leading insurers to pull the plug unless events are completely re-jigged ... or possibly driving the sportif scene undergound (not literally)0 -
He he he !
Bandwagon jumping or not ?!?!
The online poll at the bottom of the Cycling Weakly website...
Should sportive organisers be allowed to award a prize to the fastest rider?
o Yes, why not!
o No, that would make it a race
o Don't care
(36%, 56%, 8% BTW - although it doesn't say how many have voted - might just be 20 people)0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Arguing whether or not sportives are races or not is just semantics
Not at all. Not those of us who run them it's not, and it shouldn't be to anyone who wants a healthy, long term future for them either. Being able to define the nature of our events is actually very important.
There's two key reasons for this. The events need to be:
1. Legally defensible, and
2. Publicly acceptable
Let's take point one first.wildmoustache wrote:What I think andywrx and I were getting at is that it appears there is a concern about the legal grey area between what is and what isn't a race. Unless anyone can reference any Acts of Parliament or well-established legal precedents here ...?
From the 1988 Road Traffic Act:31 Regulation of cycle racing on public ways
(1) A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles is guilty of an offence, unless the race or trial—
(a) is authorised, and
(b) is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed,
by or under regulations under this section.
The key phrase there is "race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles"; ie two (or more) cycles engaged in the process of each trying to be faster than the other.
A collection of riders attempting individually (or even working together) to maintain a certain pace does not appear to fall into this definition (if it did, your club training run would illegal) and under these conditions, passing another rider is simply overtaking. And overtaking safely and legally will get you into no trouble, even if it happens at 25mph.
Sportives are presented as non competitive events, with a choice of optional Gold, Silver and Bronze pace targets to aim for, and insurers have been happy to support that format to date. As soon as you introduce winners and prizes though, you are quite clearly coming round to a "race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles" again though. Publishing times in a race-like order is maybe less explicit, but could be construed as an incentive to a "race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles" and is generally the line that insurers, rights of way and highways officers will tell you not to cross.
The danger is that at some point, someone challenges in court that the true objective of a a cyclosportive is to be a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles. If and when that happens, we need to be in a strong position to prove that is not the case. And as organisers and riders, we can all help achieve that position in the way that we present and ride the events. And, as boringly responsible as that sounds, I don't believe it means means making cyclosportives less enjoyable; it just means not doing anything stupid.
Which brings us to point 2 - Public acceptability. I'm pleased to see this issue being raised, although:wildmoustache wrote:On your final point ... you completely fail to grasp how race-like ANY sportif looks to the layman / driver/ pedestrian.
In fairness WM, public presentation of cycle events is a big part of my job. I'd like to think I have a better grasp of it than most. What I was referring to was the actual motivations of riders, not appearances. Sorry if I didn't make that clear though.andy_wrx wrote:If I were one of those walkers you meet on county lanes on sportives, or a horse rider, or motorist coming face-to-face with riders on a blind bend, or just someone sitting in my garden in a country village on a sportive route
And the aforesaid '500 riders on top-end carbon bikes came hammering through' - many of them dressed in club or team race kit and with numbers on the fronts of their bikes - I'd refer to it as a 'bike race'.
This is an important consideration, and another reason why us organisers shouldn't put race-like inducements into riders minds. And if you're concerned about your perception as a rider on the event, when you meet that walker, just slow a little, give them a little more space, smile and say hello. It'll probably make no difference to your overall time and, cumulatively, you'd be amazed at just what a different perspective of the event it can give.
Cyclosportives have enormous potential; I honestly believe that, handled and presented correctly, they could almost do for cycling what participation marathons have for running. But that means not blowing it in these early days.Martin
trailbreak.co.uk
southernsportive.com0 -
andy_wrx wrote:He he he !
Bandwagon jumping or not ?!?!
The online poll at the bottom of the Cycling Weakly website...
Should sportive organisers be allowed to award a prize to the fastest rider?
o Yes, why not!
o No, that would make it a race
o Don't care
(36%, 56%, 8% BTW - although it doesn't say how many have voted - might just be 20 people)
Sort of makes you wonder who goes to the trouble of pressing the button to register that they don't care about something though... :?Martin
trailbreak.co.uk
southernsportive.com0 -
The true test of whether you are insured or not is when you try to make a claim.
An insurance company may accept your premium and risk on the proviso that the event was not a race.
In the event of a claim they may dispute their liability on the basis that parties involved were actually racing irrespective of 'this is not a race' message on the website.
The discussion seems to be that we have no clear definition of what constitutes a race. For example if 10 members of the same Cycle Club decide to enter the same sportive and all set off together (of which i saw many in matching kit on Sunday for the Highckere) with the aim to see who was fastest on the day, they are obviously racing amongst themselves..... so when there is a horrible accident are the organisers still covered by the insurance on the basis that it was not a race?
The argument that it is not competive because the results are listed in alphabetical order rather than finish time is just dumb.0 -
The true test of whether you are insured or not is when you try to make a claim.
An insurance company may accept your premium and risk on the proviso that the event was not a race.
In the event of a claim they may dispute their liability on the basis that parties involved were actually racing irrespective of 'this is not a race' message on the website.
The discussion seems to be that we have no clear definition of what constitutes a race. For example if 10 members of the same Cycle Club decide to enter the same sportive and all set off together (of which i saw many in matching kit on Sunday for the Highckere) with the aim to see who was fastest on the day, they are obviously racing amongst themselves..... so when there is a horrible accident are the organisers still covered by the insurance on the basis that it was not a race?
The argument that it is not competive because the results are listed in alphabetical order rather than finish time is just dumb.0 -
The true test of whether you are insured or not is when you try to make a claim.
An insurance company may accept your premium and risk on the proviso that the event was not a race.
In the event of a claim they may dispute their liability on the basis that parties involved were actually racing irrespective of 'this is not a race' message on the website.
The discussion seems to be that we have no clear definition of what constitutes a race. For example if 10 members of the same Cycle Club decide to enter the same sportive and all set off together (of which i saw many in matching kit on Sunday for the Highckere) with the aim to see who was fastest on the day, they are obviously racing amongst themselves..... so when there is a horrible accident are the organisers still covered by the insurance on the basis that it was not a race?
The argument that it is not competive because the results are listed in alphabetical order rather than finish time is just dumb.0 -
I can tell you were keen to make that point....0
-
juggler wrote:The true test of whether you are insured or not is when you try to make a claim.
An insurance company may accept your premium and risk on the proviso that the event was not a race.
.
Surely they'll have given it a bit more discussion than that. Does anyone know what the stipulations are BC or the insurance companies put on these events ?
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0
