Re: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted

[Chris Paus <paus@micoks.net>]

I think it might be a good change. A ride I did last fall, two women
rescued a dog in the woods that had followed the riders and collapsed from
exhaustion. It took them extra time to locat the dog's owner and then get
back on the trail and get to camp. They were heroes for the day.

chris paus & star

At 12:50 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Steph Teeter wrote:
>I'd like some feedback from AERC members - and ride managers,
>on the existing completion time rule, and the desirability of an
>exception to it.
>
>The current rule (5) states (briefly) that competitors are allowed
>12 hours for 50 miles, 24 hours for 100, and so on according
>to the time/mileage chart. This includes all hold time.
>
>I am *considering* proposing an exception to this rule, and would like
>pro & con feedback from the membership. The proposed exception
>would provide an 'escape clause' for ride managers to use when
>extenuating circumstances prevent a rider, or riders from finishing
>in the alloted time. Something like:
>
>"Ride managers may, at their discretion, grant _completion only_ 
>(no points or placing) to riders who complete the course, but do 
>not finish within the allowed time, due to extenuating circumstances."
>
>Extenuating circumstances would include 
>1. weather and 'acts of God' - snow, rain, ice, earthquake :)
>2. emergency relief acts - rider A spends 2 hrs helping rider B who is
injured, and
>rider A goes on to finish the course overtime.
>4. unforseen trail conditions - sabotage, downed trees, landslides, wash-outs
>
>The reason I feel that an escape clause is desirable is 
>that the existing rule is -in reality- not strictly adhered to. It puts 
>ride managers in bad situation. Their options are to
>1. Not give completion under any circumstances if a rider finishes over the
>allowed time.
>2. Resanction the ride, (rule 1.3.1) after the fact, as a longer course.
This is allowed if
>last minute changes to the trail were made, and the result is a longer
>course.
>3. Fabricate the results, so that those riders who managment feels
'should' have
>credit, finish on time.
>
>The latter recourse is often chosen - and condoned. And I personally 
>have chosen it and condoned it in some circumstances.
>
>...so doesn't that make it a 'bad' rule? If it's frequently broken, but 
>most feel that breaking it might be the right thing to do?
>
>I'm not really fanatic about this, but the situation has been 
>bothering me a little bit for a long time. Both managers and 
>riders may suffer under the existing rule, but probably the ones
>who are harmed the most are the managers.
>
>The bottom line (IMO) is that without volunteer ride managers, AERC doesn't
>have rides, and without rides, there is no AERC. The organization
>currently does very little, (other than giving info and guidelines
>and advertising through EN)  to support ride managers. If we can
>give managers a little more power and flexibilty by giving them a
>'legal' option to an uncomfortable and fairly prevalent situation, 
>then we benefit as an organization.
>
>Of course this exception could be abused, but then so can most
>aspects of an endurance ride (mileage accuracy, course marking, 
>leniency in granting 'fit to continue'  completion, etc). We have to 
>assume that the ride manager will 'do the right thing' in all
>other aspects of managing a ride, and therefore should 
>assume that the manager will 'do the right thing'
>regarding overtime exceptions, and not grant completion if it was 
>not warranted.
>
>whew! 
>
>lemme know if any of you have strong opinions one way or the other..
>
>Steph
>
>
>