Author Topic: [HAMR] Jan 10th (Read 14152 times)

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #50 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:08:17 pm »

Who knows. Don't forget that it was the USAians that introduced Prohibition. Perhaps there are some that still yearn for those glory days of Tommy guns and the rise of the Mob?

IanDG · « **Reply #51 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:19:10 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 10 January, 2015, 09:37:03 pm

So far, showered, fed, tea-ed up (which takes a surprising amount!) and lots of batteries on charge. Currently fiddling with GPSs and suchlike while his clothes finish in the machine.

I'm about to put a bit of oil on his chain (not a euphemism) and wash his bidons (might be).

Thing2 · « **Reply #52 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:51:44 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 10 January, 2015, 10:08:17 pm

Who knows. Don't forget that it was the USAians that introduced Prohibition. Perhaps there are some that still yearn for those glory days of Tommy guns and the rise of the Mob?

If it's anything like RAAM, then it's a no alcohol for riders or crew rule. When staying at peoples houses, or even using commercial controls, there will be alcohol around. That doesn't mean it is being consumed by anyone associated with the rider which makes it pretty unenforceable for the type of ride that Steve is doing, but USAians do sometimes get funny about this type of thing.

Wowbagger · « **Reply #53 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:53:38 pm »

What happens if Steve stays overnight in a pub?

Kim · « **Reply #54 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:54:54 pm »

They run out of food.

mcshroom · « **Reply #55 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:55:24 pm »

I could sort of accept the rule for Steve himself (though like a few other rules, I think sticking to the law of the land should be enough), however, what possible effect would someone who is hosting Steve (and not riding or driving) having a drink have on anything?

IanDG · « **Reply #56 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:59:16 pm »

Don't come to Lewis

mcshroom · « **Reply #57 on:** 10 January, 2015, 10:59:55 pm »

I've been, it was wet

mmmmartin · « **Reply #58 on:** 10 January, 2015, 11:04:16 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 10 January, 2015, 09:56:43 pm

Apparently the UMCA has got its knickers in a complete twist about a photo of Steve with an unopened bottle of wine behind him

That would never happen in my house. What scandal!

UNOPENED? Whatever are you thinking?

Wowbagger · « **Reply #59 on:** 10 January, 2015, 11:17:12 pm »

It seems to me they had plenty of time to think up a load of rules to control Steve's record attempt. If they didn't want him in the same picture as a bottle of wine, there should have been a rule specifically forbidding it.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #60 on:** 10 January, 2015, 11:18:13 pm »

Given that Steve regularly will be eating at Wetherspoons and that he didn't actually have a glass of alcohol, the only sensible response is to tell the UMCA knicker-twisters to find a protuberance and rotate.

The Germans consider beer to be a sports drink and I believe that it is unfair to force a person to be teatotal for a year. Fine if by the rider's choice but otherwise just ridiculous. Remember this stupid rule when we raise our glasses to Steve to celebrate his passing 75,065 miles.

IanDG · « **Reply #61 on:** 10 January, 2015, 11:27:09 pm »

I'll drink to that - oh, I can't, I'm on-call

thing1 · « **Reply #62 on:** 11 January, 2015, 12:38:20 am »

For RAAM no alchahol for crew I can understand: they get a bunch of fatalities from dozzy folk stepping backwards from the shoulder into the path of a passing Juggernaut. And it's only 12 days.
For this, it'd be silly rule inheritance (and, only a postulation as this point?)

Mad Jack · « **Reply #63 on:** 11 January, 2015, 12:53:30 am »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 10 January, 2015, 08:49:12 pm

The Eagle has landed ...

Quote of the century

I forget the other time it was used, this requires more effort than sitting on top of a V2.. Saturn V..

mcshroom · « **Reply #64 on:** 11 January, 2015, 01:01:00 am »

...and is in a different century

jsabine · « **Reply #65 on:** 11 January, 2015, 01:12:01 am »

Quote from: thing1 on 11 January, 2015, 12:38:20 am

For RAAM no alchahol for crew I can understand: they get a bunch of fatalities from dozzy folk stepping backwards from the shoulder into the path of a passing Juggernaut. And it's only 12 days.
For this, it'd be silly rule inheritance (and, only a postulation as this point?)

The UMCA's year record announcement sets out some specific rules and indicates that they are an addendum to the general rules, which include

Quote

XIV. Controlled Substances
a) The use of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances (except as prescribed by physician) is prohibited. This applies to riders, crew and UMCA officials.

Strictly interpreted, along with the broad definition of support crew in section XIII, anyone hosting him (as well as the core team members and TG himself) must be teetotal for the duration of the record attempt. (Has Hummers offered? Will he withdraw?)

Given that such a prohibition is plainly ridiculous for a record attempt that's so different from anything else they validate, is it worth asking for an assurance from the UMCA that they won't interpret the rule so literally, and perhaps a clarification that it only extends to crew members while actively engaged in on-the-road support? (Maybe also an assurance that they won't consider hosts as being support crew members, as technically that would mean each one having to be approved by the UMCA officials and sign liability waivers ...)

You'd hope that they could be relied on to interpret and apply the rules sensibly, but the knicker-twisting LWaB mentions suggests that might be a dangerous assumption.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #66 on:** 11 January, 2015, 01:17:47 am »

Isn't that a wordy way of saying "find protuberance and swivel"?

jsabine · « **Reply #67 on:** 11 January, 2015, 01:20:25 am »

It's probably a wordy way of asking them to agree to swivel ...

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #68 on:** 11 January, 2015, 01:24:19 am »

Quote from: mcshroom on 11 January, 2015, 01:01:00 am

...and is in a different century

Given that the USAians interpret a year record as starting in one year and finishing in another, I think we can have a quote of a century starting in one century and finishing in another.

jamesld8 · « **Reply #69 on:** 11 January, 2015, 06:44:29 am »

Quote from: jsabine on 11 January, 2015, 01:12:01 am

Quote from: thing1 on 11 January, 2015, 12:38:20 am
For RAAM no alchahol for crew I can understand: they get a bunch of fatalities from dozzy folk stepping backwards from the shoulder into the path of a passing Juggernaut. And it's only 12 days.
For this, it'd be silly rule inheritance (and, only a postulation as this point?)

The UMCA's year record announcement sets out some specific rules and indicates that they are an addendum to the general rules, which include

Quote
XIV. Controlled Substances
a) The use of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances (except as prescribed by physician) is prohibited. This applies to riders, crew and UMCA officials.

Strictly interpreted, along with the broad definition of support crew in section XIII, anyone hosting him (as well as the core team members and TG himself) must be teetotal for the duration of the record attempt. (Has Hummers offered? Will he withdraw?)

Given that such a prohibition is plainly ridiculous for a record attempt that's so different from anything else they validate, is it worth asking for an assurance from the UMCA that they won't interpret the rule so literally, and perhaps a clarification that it only extends to crew members while actively engaged in on-the-road support? (Maybe also an assurance that they won't consider hosts as being support crew members, as technically that would mean each one having to be approved by the UMCA officials and sign liability waivers ...)

You'd hope that they could be relied on to interpret and apply the rules sensibly, but the knicker-twisting LWaB mentions suggests that might be a dangerous assumption.

absolutely one can imagine a scenario where both Steve and Trazan beat the 70k miles, but Steve beats Tarzan, but some UMCA official notes that Steve has been eating in pubs where alcohol is served, and one of Steve`s hosts has a drink with his meal etc etc...and then of course Steve`s record is invalidated in favour of Tarzan due to use of alcohol by member of support crew............

mind boggles at this unbelievable bureaucratic pettiness by UMCA, RAAM yes, rider on world attempt maybe , but others ??

Wowbagger · « **Reply #70 on:** 11 January, 2015, 07:14:07 am »

In many small towns and villages it wouldn't be possible to get a decent meal unless you went to a pub. I would imagine that's pretty much the same in small-town USA, except they probably wouldn't call them pubs.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #71 on:** 11 January, 2015, 07:19:00 am »

In the cold light of day, jsabine has got the right approach - ask for a clarification that takes account of the circumstances of this record. I still like my terminology though.

jsabine · « **Reply #72 on:** 11 January, 2015, 08:47:46 am »

I like your terminology better as well ... but was trying to be mindful of the risk of, as JB suggests, someone behaving like an officious prick.

(There's always one. Often it's me. That's why I'm mindful of the risk ...)

Fidgetbuzz · « **Reply #73 on:** 11 January, 2015, 10:14:16 am »

there is a least one other oddity flying around too

Standard UCMA rules are this

d)The rider(s) must specify in advance
what type of bike the rider will be
using and must remain with that type
of bike throughout the event. For
example, a rider cannot start on a
conventional road bike and later
switch to a recumbent.

but curiously the year record rules have an amendment allowing this

Rider may use any bike type, or combination of bike types, except for faired recumbents. There will not be separate record categories based on bike type. (This means standard frame bikes and recumbents will be on equal basis for this record.)

Now I do ( cynically) wonder whether this amendment has been made to specifically assist Tarzan - as he is on record that he is considering using a recumbent at some stage.

Roger

RichForrest · « **Reply #74 on:** 11 January, 2015, 10:21:52 am »

He's not considering one, he has one as seen on Facebook