|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
"Jeff Potter" wrote in message .. . Snoopy wrote: Modern as of about 1982. The idea that someone other than yourself is responsible for you didn't seem to exist before then and there were many more public events run as a result at far lower costs. For those of us who weren't 'there' in 1982, could you explain what happened in the US at that time? It wasn't a specific event. Like the judge this time said, no one was supposed to change the whole culture just because someone was being held financially and criminally liable for something that previously they weren't being held liable for. It was more a weird zeitgeist change. That's all bull****, the only thing that counts is what is going on now, right he http://www.rathergood.com/lightsabre/ Dashii |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
Dashi Toshii wrote: That's all bull****, the only thing that counts is what is going on now, right he http://www.rathergood.com/lightsabre/ WOW -- Jeff Potter **** *Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com for modern folkways and culture revival... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...new books featuring: XC ski culture, a Gulf Coast thriller folding bicycles ... with radical novels coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
Jeff Potter recalls a change in the cost of U.S. bike racing in 1982 and
thinks it was the result of increasing costs of lawsuits. That is true but not because of litigation by riders -- it was bicycle politicians engaged in a power trip who ran up the cost. In fact, medical and liability costs in U.S. racing declined for a time after the strong helmet rule was adopted in 1986, but licensing costs just kept going up. Jeff writes: It wasn't a specific event. Like the judge this time said, no one was supposed to change the whole culture just because someone was being held financially and criminally liable for something that previously they weren't being held liable for. It was more a weird zeitgeist change. About then, for the first time, the US racing assoc got insurance. And racing license fees went up a little bit. I recall a lot of squawk and surprise. Why did we need insurance? Racers would never sue the racing people, would they? That would be cutting off nose to spite face, right? The culture was stunned. Wrong chronology. The incident that caused USCF to begin buying both medical and liability insurance occurred in the 1978 National Time Trial Championships when Alan Kingsbery was clobbered by a cement truck as a result of inadequate marshaling of a cross-street. Alan, who was national record holder in the individual time trial, didn't sue USCF though he certainly could have inasmuch as he was permanently disabled. The USCF board of directors promptly formed an insurance committee, chaired by a director who was also an insurance broker, and he proceeded to purchase insurance from himself, pocketing the commissions. The licensing fees naturally went up a bit the next year -- 25% to be exact. It was also our first introduction to a gag order or silence as term of agreement. No one was talking about what had happened or why. The culture of no one being able to legally discuss terms of settlements was suddenly a public thing. I recall never hearing of such a thing before. The USCF wouldn't tell us why they had to do it but that it was simply needed now. It was a shock. I recall no gag orders in cycling incidents of that era, but they had a very long history in litigation outside the sport. There were many race events for all kinds of sports before this period, they were cheap and had big prize-purses. I recall $5K-$10K purses most weekends in the midwest for $5 entry fees. There were certainly no such purses advertised through the early 1980s because it was against the rules for "amateurs" to received monetary awards, though they sometime passed under the table. The normal prize list consisted of equipment of various kinds, much of it consisting of donations from bike shops of things they had been unable to sell. I recall that I once received a Kucharek hairnet that had been recycled as a bike race prize a number of times. Each winner found that it was too large for them so they gave it to their club to be awarded in the next race. Happily it fit me just fine, though when I later drop-tested it I found that it didn't do a very good job of attenuating the impact. A couple years later the fee threatened to become huge. A hue and cry went up. It was knocked back but still sizeable and has been with us since A big increase (67%) did occur in 1982 but it had nothing to do with the cost of insurance and was never "knocked back." That increase was the result of a legal battle over control of (then almost nonexistent) professional bike racing between USCF, led by Mike Fraysse, and USPRO, led by Jack Simes. Both had been personal rivals since kindergarten and both hired teams of lawyers and made frequent trips overseas to lobby UCI officials, thus managing to **** away more than a millions dollars. USCF balanced their books by substantially increasing licensing fees while USPRO sank into debt, underwritten by their "Daddy Warbucks," Fred Mengoni. USCF licensees eventually paid the accumulated USPRO expenses too when USCF bought them out in 1995 in conjunction with the formation of USA Cycling. In other words, this was a very expensive power trip paid for by the membership. Full disclosu I increased the cost of membership in USA Cycling by suing that organization twice. Though both suits were successful in the legal sense, I failed in my main objective of expelling the officials who carried out illegal acts as part of their 1999 power grab. Thus, USA Cycling is still in the hands of crooks. -Les Earnest P.S. I look into this newsgroup only occasionally and am about to embark on a personal Tour de France, so I may not see follow-ups. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:50:00 -0400, Jeff Potter
wrote: Sure, but is it fair as a competitor to gamble, take a risk, when the odds have been rearranged against you? When it's something definite, obvious, intentional, ec., sure that's not fair. But what about the unpredictables? IMO Anderson's hazard plan was too actually good. She listed riders 'getting the wrong information' as a hazard. That particular 'unpredictible' covered a lot of ground. It meant she could have been held responsible for the postie putting the information in the wrong letterbox, a rider being distracted during the verbal briefing, a rider pretending they could read the instructions but actually having a reading deficiency and not taking it all in. These type of factors are actually impossible for Anderson to control. Claiming that as race director she could do so via a management plan was IMO setting herself up to fail. Even in terms of organization? Heck, I recall real race routes and official routes deviating quite often, lead vehicles taking riders off course. Do you mean that you recall a race where the course changed after the printed route was presented to competitors? Or are you simply talking about a mistake by the lead vehicle? An organizer tries to get everything lined up but 'stuff' easily happens. Once the gun goes off the real race starts and everyone is obliged to be heads-up. Oh well I suppose it's all a matter of what's reasonable to expect from an organizer. Perfection? No. How much imperfection? The culture decides, I guess. Unfortunately in this case the jury decides. Not normally a problem in itself except that a typical jury is not part of the 'bike racing culture'. The picture presented at the trial was that closing roads for bike racing is something that occurs quite frequently. While this may be so for criterion type events, these are usually run over a short circuit in the form of a closed loop. Comparing a 'criterion' to an 'A to B road race' is something akin to comparing a Formula One motor race with an International Motor Rally. The formula one cars race (like a criterion) over series of laps on a closed circuit where everything is tightly controlled. But in an international motor rally (contested on public roads) all the sections on link roads (the touring stages) are run according to normal road rules. Similarly it would be unthinkable to run a cycle road race over a sole link road in New Zealand and expect to be able to close the road. To my knowledge closing a link road in conjunction with a bike race has never happened in New Zealand - certainly not this century. Hence IMO the fact that Anderson didn't mention that the hilltop roads were open because open roads in New Zealand are 'always open' was a reasonable position to take. But today I suspect that organizers are held liable for everything. It would not have had to be a paper instruction gaffe to wreck this lady. Or are events more immune to harm from lawsuit or threat thereof than I'm thinking? Astrid Anderson was not subject to a civil lawsuit as all competitors had to sign a waver that they competed at their own risk. The unique thing about this 'Le Race' case was that after investigating the circumstances of the case, the police hit Astrid Anderson with a *criminal* charge. A criminal charge against an individual organizing an event had never gone to trial in New Zealand before. But New Zealand also has the luxury of an Accident Compensation System. This measn that in the event of injury due to an accident the state foots the bill and private lawsuits relating to any personal injury incurred as a result of an accident are not allowed. This, in theory, should make it cheaper from an insurance point of view to run these kind of events in New Zealand in comparison with the USA. Well, I'm thinking that if they are then it's only because they've paid out about 1,000X more in overhead costs than was done in 1980, raising the $ barrier to both organizing and participating and hugely impacting other public culture as well. So even if organizers can protect themselves what is the price we've all paid? I think as events get 'busier' it is inevitable the cost of safety compliance rises. But I think you make a valid point about the trade off. Maybe unintended consequences? Today's reflex of "I'll sue to stop this kind of stupidity from hurting others and send a message to their pocketbooks" might be with good intent but what is the effect? Much less public culture. The crown took almost a year to decide whether they were going to prosecute. Hardly a reflex reaction. And how often is it with good intent? --Someone usually wants money. I don't think that was the motivation in this case. The grieving family of Caldwell made it quite clear that they did not consider the loss their loved one's life could in any way be compensated for by money. It might also often be what might be called benign: someone needs money to pay injury bills: the injured or his insurer so they sue as a matter of course, no hard feelings, nothing personal or even greedy. Yet the general culture is hugely harmed anyway. Fortunately the ACC scheme in New Zealand has kept such lawsiuts at bay for quite a few years. However, as the ACC scheme has been eroded in real dollar terms it is true that disaffected people have considered separate civil action based on such grounds as mental trauma not directly associated with the injury that is not covered under the ACC umbrella. It is not a healthy trend. SNOOPY -- Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details -- -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
prize money?
Thanks for the clarifications, Les. I write as a racer who was watching and listening from the ranks.
I do recall the districts being nicely powerful back then, FWIW. I recall getting effective help from my rep with the natl people and also our Mich rep (Obermeyer) being very pro about getting all our race results into the various media, both USCF and VN. I felt I was represented anyway, that was a good thing about back then in the 80's. I also recall the amateur ban on money and various gimmicks to get around it. I guess the big prizes came right when some ban was lifted? Oh well, so much for memory. I don't recall many full-on pro events but Mich/midwest money was good and deep---maybe the events were pro/am and the clubs recycled the $? For sure winning teams pooled the money. I moved to Colo in 85 or so and was shocked at tiny prizemoney. Before that I recall years of midwest race fliers with "$5K" at the top. Hard to imagine the cash register dudes were getting it all laundered. Was Zinger/Coors always a pro race? There were tons of primes and prizes there as I recall. Maybe back then the primes were overt/public and the prize cash went to the coach/team? Or maybe even the primes if over a certain amount had to go to the coach first. Oh well, the dollarsigns were everywhere in the midwest, my friends put themselves thru college with prizemoney, and entry and license fees were low. Les Earnest wrote: [ ] There were many race events for all kinds of sports before this period, they were cheap and had big prize-purses. I recall $5K-$10K purses most weekends in the midwest for $5 entry fees. There were certainly no such purses advertised through the early 1980s because it was against the rules for "amateurs" to received monetary awards, though they sometime passed under the table. -- Jeff Potter **** *Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com for modern folkways and culture revival... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...new books featuring: XC ski culture, a Gulf Coast thriller folding bicycles ... with radical novels coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES! |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
Snoopy wrote:
[ ] An organizer tries to get everything lined up but 'stuff' easily happens. Once the gun goes off the real race starts and everyone is obliged to be heads-up. Oh well I suppose it's all a matter of what's reasonable to expect from an organizer. Perfection? No. How much imperfection? The culture decides, I guess. Unfortunately in this case the jury decides. Not normally a problem in itself except that a typical jury is not part of the 'bike racing culture'. This is where general culture zeitgeist comes in. Jury of peers. Be very afraid in the US! TV-watchers will judge your life. [ ] Well, I'm thinking that if they are then it's only because they've paid out about 1,000X more in overhead costs than was done in 1980, raising the $ barrier to both organizing and participating and hugely impacting other public culture as well. So even if organizers can protect themselves what is the price we've all paid? I think as events get 'busier' it is inevitable the cost of safety compliance rises. But I think you make a valid point about the trade off. Events are far less crowded these days in many cases. It was really cool in the late 70's how popular outdoor events and activities were. Of course some other events are way bigger. Maybe unintended consequences? Today's reflex of "I'll sue to stop this kind of stupidity from hurting others and send a message to their pocketbooks" might be with good intent but what is the effect? Much less public culture. The crown took almost a year to decide whether they were going to prosecute. Hardly a reflex reaction. More a carefully cultural one then. And how often is it with good intent? --Someone usually wants money. I don't think that was the motivation in this case. The grieving family of Caldwell made it quite clear that they did not consider the loss their loved one's life could in any way be compensated for by money. I can believe that NZ is a far less $ oriented culture but minimallism will change that soon, sadly. Even so there are other cultural weaknesses than $-lust, such a gov't and bureaucratic meddling, which I wouldn't be surprised to see NZ have a lot of in places. (A la nationwide helmet law in Oz.) When a govt gets serious about security issues, for reasons of either $ or power or custodial-thinking, be afraid. The safest, cheapest, most economic, efficient and predictable place is a prison. I worry about the modern attempt to erase unpredictables. It may be an inevitable thing. Who doesn't try to fix a problem when they see it? The modern view of 'problems' as a whole is perhaps at the root. Won't be going away soon. Will probably require implosion before we see change as it doesn't appear to be sustainable. That is, animals can be kept predictably but humans can't tolerate it. Hmmm, I suppose it depends on just how stupid and low we can be trained to go. We haven't seen the floor there yet. Give a population enough TV, distraction and medication.... -- Jeff Potter **** *Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com for modern folkways and culture revival... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...new books featuring: XC ski culture, a Gulf Coast thriller folding bicycles ... with radical novels coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES! |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
prize money?
ronde chumpion wrote:
Didn't the young amateur Davis Phinney win the USPRO Criterium Championship in Baltimore in '83? The prize money was $10,000 IIRC, and went to an account? until he turned pro after the LA Games in '84. Yes, that was another dodge that was used to maintain "amateur" status. Money placed in a trust account could also be used to cover travel and training expenses without tarnishing shamateur standing. -Les Earnest |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
prize money?
Carl Sundquist wrote:
Wasn't that the Great Mohawk Carpet Classic in New Jersey in 1982? If so, I thought Jacque Bradley won it. It is possible that I recalled the wrong race. I'm pretty sure that it was Connie Carpenter who was diddled out of a big prize from a race around then. Incidentally, as I recall, the Rug Race prize list was "Winner take all," which was what induced me to propose the prize list rule that requires big prize lists to be spread out to at least 20 places. It seems to have functioned reasonably well ever since. -Les Earnest |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:07:43 -0400, Jeff Potter
wrote: Snoopy wrote: I think as events get 'busier' it is inevitable the cost of safety compliance rises. But I think you make a valid point about the trade off. Events are far less crowded these days in many cases. It was really cool in the late 70's how popular outdoor events and activities were. I also meant 'busier' in the sense of all the peripheral 'normal' activities that are affected by the staging of a cycling event. Whereas once you might organize a bike race along a back road and see one or two farmers cars, these days that same back road might lead to a lake that has been discovered as a weekend fishing hole by townies. The cycle race organizers then get the SUV brigade complaining that cyclists shouldn't be allowed along roads along which they like to tow boats for a weekend away. Even if the bike race is only on one Saturday per year! Of course some other events are way bigger. Possibly they need the critical mass to justify the safety expenditure required. I can believe that NZ is a far less $ oriented culture but minimallism will change that soon, sadly. Even so there are other cultural weaknesses than $-lust, such a gov't and bureaucratic meddling, which I wouldn't be surprised to see NZ have a lot of in places. (A la nationwide helmet law in Oz.) Too late! The helmet law is here already. We weren't too far behind the Ozzies. animals can be kept predictably but humans can't tolerate it. Hmmm, I suppose it depends on just how stupid and low we can be trained to go. We haven't seen the floor there yet. Give a population enough TV, distraction and medication.... Yes you do wonder don't you. Like some of those appliance instructions you get these days. For example: "Don't iron your clothes while you are still wearing them." Perhaps cycle race competitors of the future will need an IQ test before showing up at the starting line? SNOOPY -- Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|