Excommunicated

[The French Tandem]

I understand you point, but what it means is that riders are punished because the organizer did not behave correctly. Is this fair for the riders?

Instead of banning all Swiss rides, It would have been perfectly possible to just skip the organizer, and ask the Swiss riders to send their personal results directly to ACP. After all, that's exactly what you do in the UK with your DIY rides. We don't have the equivalent of DIY rides in France, but it would be a really good thing (in my view).

[marcusjb]

I understand you point, but what it means is that riders are punished because the organizer did not behave correctly. Is this fair for the riders?

Instead of banning all Swiss rides, It would have been perfectly possible to just skip the organizer, and ask the Swiss riders to send their personal results directly to ACP. After all, that's exactly what you do in the UK with your DIY rides. We don't have the equivalent of DIY rides in France, but it would be a really good thing (in my view).

I wouldn't have thought ACP gives a monkeys about our DIY rides - they are a BR thing not BRM. 

It does sound like the organiser was given a number of opportunities to respond to ACP, and didn't.  Sure it punishes riders as well, and that is a shame I agree. 

However, their game, their rules.   I can't see they've done much wrong from the information I have.

[The French Tandem]

I wouldn't have thought ACP gives a monkeys about our DIY rides - they are a BR thing not BRM. 

You are certainly right, but I can't understand why is it so. Audax is something for grown up people who just want to have fun riding their bicycle. No money involved, not even any sort of glory or fame for the "winner", so riders have no reason to cheat, or even think about cheating!

[marcusjb]

I wouldn't have thought ACP gives a monkeys about our DIY rides - they are a BR thing not BRM. 

You are certainly right, but I can't understand why is it so. Audax is something for grown up people who just want to have fun riding their bicycle. No money involved, not even any sort of glory or fame for the "winner", so riders have no reason to cheat, or even think about cheating!

Are you suggesting it is cheating to ride BR events?  I am confused by your point.

BR events are an AUK thing - nothing to do with ACP.

[The French Tandem]

Sorry Marcus, I didn't make my point clear. What I tried to say is that it is easier to cheat on a DIY than on an organized event, and that's why the frenchs are not fond of things like DIYs. We are in a country where everything have to be supervised by an authority or another. I did absolutely not mean that you, or anyone else, is a potential cheater! Please accept my apologies if this is what you understood from my previous post.

[marcusjb]

Has any suggestion been made that riders on Swiss events cheated? I am not sure how cheating comes into this.

I thought it was all t do with lack of comms from the org.

The riders have been shafted, but by the org, not ACP is how I see it.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Correct. There are repercussions if an organiser doesn't do their job properly.

[mcshroom]

That's how I read it as well.

If there are qualifying rides for PBP (their event, their rules) and those are BRMs, then I would be rather miffed if I rode a Swiss BRM as a qualifier, and then found out that the Swiss organiser hadn't actually sent the information on so it hadn't been validated.

Considering the lack of communication I'm not sure what other option the organisers have.

[TimC]

Seems to me that the only impact on the Swiss riders is that rides which claim to be BRMs will not be ratified by ACP. This organiser is free to continue organising rides in his own country, and that country's riders are free to continue riding those events. It's the link to ACP that has been broken, not the ability to ride (something like) Audax in Switzerland. However, it does bugger up their chances of riding PBP!

[Cudzoziemiec]

What Tim said! ACP's reaction is IMO justified, sensible and ultimately in the interests of Swiss riders intending to ride PBP while not affecting those who don't. Better to have this decision taken now than in May when it would be too late for the Swiss to find other rides (though it's already going to be difficult, I'm sure). Even if ACP did not excommunicate the Swiss organisation, it wouldn't help those Swiss riders - because the whole problem, AIUI, is that ACP don't know who they are.

However, the Swiss website LWaB linked to upthread is still displaying "Qualifikation für das Race Across America (RAAM)
Brevets des Randonneurs Mondiaux". It strikes me I'm not sure what the relationship is between BRM and ACP. I thought BRM homologation meant, and was invented so that, an event counted as a qualifier for PBP?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The history is more complex than that but it is basically true.

[Jacques]

It's only 2014 so the fact their rides haven't been recognised doesn't affect the chance of doing PBP next year. Switzerland is a small country surrounded by many others where there will be lots of BRM rides for qualification not too far away. ACP has given them notice in advance to warn them they may have to do this.

I live in a part of France where I will possibly have to travel to qualify, probably similar distances to those  that the Swiss may have to do. I like many others am keen to do PBP so it's no problem. So why should it be for anyone else?

Maybe I am missing some facts on this but from what I read it all seems above board to me.

[Ningishzidda]

Sounds to me Mr Zimmerman officially organised some events in 2014. He failed to send the cards for certification and pocketed the loot.

He has probably made forgeries of blank cards from 2014 to use in 2015 with the relevant details changed before printing.

He’ll take entries under the false pretence the 2015 events are covered by Audax.


I say ACP should send some heavies to break his legs.

[The French Tandem]

Considering the lack of communication I'm not sure what other option the organisers have.

Since the problem is only with the organizer, not the riders, the other option was to ask the swiss riders to bypass their organizer, and send  directly to ACP, their "proof of participation" in the rides: brevet cards, photos, tickets, etc.. Of course, ACP did not use this option because it is culturally incompatible with french habits. That's why I talked about cheating a few posts above. I don't mean anyone have actually cheated, but I bet the ACP officers were worried that using the option I describe would open the door to possible cheating. 

It strikes me I'm not sure what the relationship is between BRM and ACP.

You can see BRM as a sort of trademark that qualifies certain rides, and ACP is the owner of the trademark.

[Andrew]

I live in a part of France where I will possibly have to travel to qualify, probably similar distances to those  that the Swiss may have to do.

Ditto.

I feel sorry for the Swiss riders caught up in this. Still, the good thing about rules is that you know what they are. Agree or disagree is another matter (and there are many rules in life I disagree with!), sometimes you play the game if you want something. At least the ACP have given Swiss riders sufficient time to do the necessary.

ACP's ball. They decide who gets to play.

Perhaps we'll see 'yet another PBP'?

[frankly frankie]

ACP do set up a bit of a bureaucratic firewall around themselves but I would have thought a Swiss organiser would take that in his stride.   Quite possibly there were some serious personal problems that got in the way, that no-one is aware of.

As to ACP/BRM - I think of it like this:

RM is to ACP, as
UN is to USA.

or, if you like, as
EU is to Germany.

In each case, the 2nd is supposedly a member of the 1st, but the reality is,
the 1st-mentioned is in the pocket of the 2nd.

[Mr Larrington]

It's only 2014 so the fact their rides haven't been recognised doesn't affect the chance of doing PBP next year. Switzerland is a small country surrounded by many others where there will be lots of BRM rides for qualification not too far away. ACP has given them notice in advance to warn them they may have to do this.

If the 2015 events are being advertised as "BRM" then the Swiss riders may assume that they're PBP qualifiers when they ain't.  If I'd done an SR series to qualify and then found ACP had never heard of me then I think I'd be conducting a rigorous experiment to determine the exact temperature at which the alleged organiser's face catches fire.

[frankly frankie]

ACP are not as inflexible as they used to be - I feel sure they'll find a way to sort it.

[Ivo]

ACP are not as inflexible as they used to be - I feel sure they'll find a way to sort it.

The fact that they state complaints from riders as a reason to act supports this. In the old days complaints from riders directly to the ACP would be disregarded, due to the old ACP principle of only communicating through their correspondents. Currently things have chagned and the ACP enjoys communicating with riders and actively follows a few online forums (though not all).

[Cycling Daddy]

Just for information how 'big' is ACP in terms of membership? 

[Fidgetbuzz]

Adding to this thread one of my concerns --


there is no transparency about PBP financial figures at all - is there a surplus - where does it go - who benefits from it -- who controls it -- the whole topic seems to have nobody to ask  and to be  totally obscure.

Does it all accrue to ACP - and has anybody ever seen their financial figures?

Roger

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Short answers are:
-ACP was less than 200 members, a couple of years back.
- I don't know of anybody outside ACP seeing their books. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Interestingly for me, the latest series of ACP agreements note that LRM is part of ACP and not the other way round. That does not match my recollection of the ACP agreements of a decade ago. My memory is somewhat unreliable at time though. I wish I could blame it on excessive sex, drugs and rock'n'roll in the '70s but no such luck.

[Exit Stage Left]

Adding to this thread one of my concerns --


there is no transparency about PBP financial figures at all - is there a surplus - where does it go - who benefits from it -- who controls it -- the whole topic seems to have nobody to ask  and to be  totally obscure.

Does it all accrue to ACP - and has anybody ever seen their financial figures?

Roger

It's much broader than just ACP. There are partnership arrangements with the FFCT and the host towns, and ultimately, with the Ministry of Sport. The presentation in January is a sight to behold. I filmed a lot of it last time, but never got round to editing it, apart from an interview with Jean-Gualbert Faburel and with Jennifer Wise of Randonneurs USA.

PBP is actually small beer in comparison with Semaine Federale, also an FFCT project, which has 15,000 participants spread over a week, every year, in a different place. I'm constantly fascinated by the way that the status accorded to organisers in France facilitates these huge events.

I think it's a cultural difference, and I don't know what the accounting aspect of that culture is. It would make quite an interesting study.

[Cycling Daddy]

I am full of admiration for the orgs. and members,  it is a small Club to be running a large event.  I am not really concerned by the accounting, the cost (last time around) seemed appropriate. 

[Chris S]

France has the local infrastructure to handle it; actual people who care about their local community with actual power and money.

So it's much easier for the FFCT to just hand off large chunks of organisation to the locals. It all adds to the experience - different communities treat the occasion in different ways, with different priorities.