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

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!

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.

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! =-----

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!

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!

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

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

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

--