jakebigham

I was going to reply off list because I didn't want to get caught in
the crossfire, but I think I am considering this in a pretty unbiased
way. I don't know who the team(s) are that are involved, I haven't
checked out the photos; I don't have a dog in this hunt one way or
the other. So here are some thoughts:
1) 15.1.2 speaks for itself - there is no issue here, if there is a
violation then there is a violation.

2) 11.1 Again, very clear.

3) 12.3 - Here I think there is a difficulty. This rule seems to
actively dissuade and discourage protests; I can understand wanting
to not encourage protests, but the time limitation of 15 minutes plus
$10 is a bit much. Does this mean the rider must finish, hurry over
to get money, hurry back to the officials and make the protest within
15 minutes? Lets say someone forced a rider off the road (an extreme
example I admit but go with me for a minute) would the rider's
protest be disallowed because they were in an ambulance? What about
races were the finish is miles away from the car parks, how does 15
minutes make sense there? Time trials are particularly mismatched to
this rule because by the very nature of the contest individuals from
the same field are not finishing at the same (relative) time.
Even if we ignore the question of protests, in this case
there sounds as if there is evidence of an unmistakable kind that
exists without the need of a protest. So let's forget 12.3 for a
minute: official sees photographic evidence of a rule violation,
official makes determination, end of story.
I have to disagree with George Schreck about his
comments on putting "photographers in the position of policemen". If
I understand the circumstance they are certainly not policemen - they
were taking photographs for an entirely different reason... that just
happen to illustrate a violation to the racers and officials who saw
those photographs. It is the fact that these photographs were taken
"in a random fashion for a different purpose" that makes them
legitimate. If the photographer were set up in a certain spot hoping
to take pictures of rule violations that would be a different story.
Then they would be acting like police. As for evidence being
"submitted after the fact", I would generally trust that a whole lot
more than evidence submitted before the fact.
I think almost all evidence is submitted after the fact.
OK- I'll shut up now - Jake Bigham

On May 14, 2007, at 2:27 PM, gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote:

> I am not sure we want to put the photographers in the position of
> being the policemen of these things. The photogrpahers are there
> for a different purpose and may not be taking photos of all the
> teams or posting all of the pictures. We have officials, and if
> they see things, fine, but if they do not and no other participant
> sees it at the time and protests, I do not think we should be
> submiting after the fact evidence that may have been taken in a
> random fashion and for a different purpose.
>
> I realize this may not approach the perfection that many in OBRA
> desire, but the quest foor perfection often leads to more
> complexity and other problems. There is some elegance in simplicity
>
> --
>
> George Schreck
> gschreckchat@comcast.net
> (503) 502-0425
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Candi Murray"
>
> > Scenario
> > A team time trial. Times are posted at the start. Long drive home
> and the
> > wonderful OBRA photographers start to post their wares. A 2nd
> place team
> > notes that the team that beat them by a mere 7 seconds is
> photographed over
> > the centerline in no less then 4 pictures. Protest is filed.
> Results are
> > posted on the web 20 minutes later.
> >
> >
> > What to do?
> >
> > OBRA rules state
> >
> > 15.1.2 Unless instructed by the Chief Referee, all riders must
> stay to the
> > right of the centerline
> >
> > 11.1 No rider shall benefit from his or her misconduct. No team
> shall
> > benefit from its misconduct, or the misconduct of one of its
> members.
> >
> > 12.3 Protests concern ing in cidents during the race will be
> presented to the
> > Chief Referee in writing and accompanied by a fee of $10, which
> will be
> > forwarded to OBRA. They must be submitted within 15 minutes of the
> > protester's finish
> >
> >
> > Presuming this is a standard "though shalt not cross the
> centerline" event,
> > it's a DQ. 6" centerline violations in the corner would be
> applying rules to
> > apply rules. This is flagrantly cutting the corner and the
> distance. If
> > the photographs were the only four turns that they cut, its
> probably worth 5
> > seconds at best. Since we all know that if this happened in the
> > photographs, it happened at 90% of the opportunities on the course.
> >
> > If the violating team is disqualified does every team evidenced
> by the
> > photographs get disqualified? Or just the one protest acted upon?
> >
> > Do we allow the 15 minute rule from acting on the matter. Are
> result s real ly
> > formally posted at the event or is the on line results the final
> results.
> > Its obviously not in everyone's interest to allow results to
> stand when
> > there is flagrant cheating. The UIC allows "evidence"
> > after the fact to be submitted and disqualification to happen
> significantly
> > later.
> >
> > So many things to take into consideration.
> >
> > Any help?
> > Candi
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org