Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Fascinating theory... But if you look at it from the rider's perspective - he signed that 'contract' and with that he was also under the assumption that ride management would work to provide a safe, well-run and appropriate environment for this event. So if ride management failed in a very drastic way, or were informed of particular problems which they then refused to act upon - then this participant has the right to consider suit.

For ride management to consider retribution against a rider - whom the AERC considers a member in good standing - then other riders should take note and beware of this particular ride management. Since, IF there is found to be guilt of something-or-another by a court of law - then it's obvious that this ride management is the type to try tactics of strong-arming and intimidation.(since this example would intimidate future riders from complaining/taking action if there are indeed significant problems with this ride/ride management)  On the other hand, if the case is won by ride management - then they have a reason to ban IF AERC agrees with them - granted IF they 'ban' prior to the court case, then it still makes ride management look bad to 'outside' AERC riders...

Just my opinion... Since there are laws against this type of retribution by employers/government agencies and those who bring suit against them...So the legal system and the public consider this to be a morally wrong practice.

- LP