Proposal 9: removal of BR consolation prize

[JohnHamilton]

But as I write I'm not thinking of myself as to the riders who were behind me. OK, there were not that many, but in I believe they are the most audacious riders on the event, and we should be helping them, not pulling up the drawbridge on them.

Very laudable, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. For those who would argue that "I can only just finish in 40:00 therefore the regs should help me by allowing the BR limit of 41:40" (taking your BCM example), I'm sure we can equally find those who will say "I can only just finish in 41:40 therefore the regs should help me by mandating a 14.3kph speed (43:30)", and "I can only just finish in 43:30 therefore..." ad infinitum.

The whole idea of audax is to meet a challenge at a defined standard. So there has to be a line. Therefore there will always be those who are close to or just over the line, wherever the line happens to be drawn. Using this argument as justification for moving the line the only logical conclusion is to do away with the line altogether.

But if it were, and to expand on my previous post, my proposal would be for all AUK events to run at BR standard (whether 15 or 14.3kmhr, an Org decision), with BRM Validation  offered to riders achieving the BRM standard (call it a Gold Medal finishing time, if you will).

I suspect this could be progressed without amendment to AUK regulation (IANAL).

Read that again and you'll find that it's proposing exactly the current situation but worded in reverse (i.e. "meet a higher standard and you get an extra validation", rather than the current "don't meet the standard but meet a slightly lower one and we'll give you a consolation prize").

If we are to have multiple standard events (which is in itself a fine idea) then the rider has to decide beforehand which they want to opt for. So they have to choose BR or BRM on entering. If they choose a BR 600 but finish inside 40:00 then they still only get a BR validated ride. Likewise if they opt for BRM but finish outside of 40:00 then they get nothing. YPYMATYC

And as you say, I don't think doing this requires a change in the regs - it can be done already (granted the IT systems could be improved to make things easier for everyone if we want this to become the de facto standard rather than simply being down to the individual organiser). The only need to change the regulations would be to mandate in the regulations that the organiser must offer the choice (increasing choice for the rider but reducing it for the organiser).

I'll also note that the validation figures for the past few years show that there have only been a very small number of riders who have required this bail-out clause and been BR validated on a BRM event.

[Manotea]

As you say, John, there has to be a standard, the question is, which standard?

I don't regard BR Validation as a 'consolation prize', it's why I'm there.

BRM Validation is just the cherry on the cake.

[Manotea]

And as you say, I don't think doing this requires a change in the regs - it can be done already (granted the IT systems could be improved to make things easier for everyone if we want this to become the de facto standard rather than simply being down to the individual organiser). The only need to change the regulations would be to mandate in the regulations that the organiser must offer the choice (increasing choice for the rider but reducing it for the organiser).

I don't follow the last point (in bold). Why *must*?

[DanialW]

"* to utilise best 'plain English' practice."

I'm sure what FF meant was:

"* to use plain English."

Seriously though, the regs need a lot of work. I've argued for some time that AUK could do with someone responsible for its governance, to go off and ponder stuff like this.

I suspect that part of the idea behind IanH's proposal for century rides is to take a fesh look how regulations may support events, without suffocating them.

I'm all for both approaches. One will inform the other.

[Euan Uzami]

As you say, John, there has to be a standard, the question is, which standard?

I don't regard BR Validation as a 'consolation prize', it's why I'm there.

BRM Validation is just the cherry on the cake.

Just don't bother about BRM - forget it. BR is fine.
BRM award isn't just for happening to have cycled fast, it's for declaring that you were going to do so and then fulfilling it. But if it's not for PBP qualification I don't see why you want BRM.
Nothing wrong with choosing the relaxed standard, but comform to the stricter one, like I did on PBP. You get validation, and the 'cherry on the cake' as you put it is that you know yourself that you cycled it in BRM time. What's to lose?
Just only choose BRM standard when you need it for PBP.

edit: I made up my own award this year (All-england AAA SR), then set out to achieve it and did so. I initially wanted to be strict and make them all BRM events, but soon realised that restricted my choice of events, so I thought why bother? I've got all the rides listed on the audax UK site, and points totalled up, which fulfills one of the main things I use AUK for which is to provide recognition for rides - whether i've got a french sticker in the card makes little difference.

[AndyH]

the Regs need a horse and cart driving though them

Why? It's a serious question & I'm genuinely interested. To a relative newcomer it all seems to work very well.

Well -
* to eliminate the ones that are tacitly ignored at present.
* to put in place any important 'unwritten' concepts.
* to remove ambiguites where they exist (though I have to say, with my long memory, that in most cases these are intentional - fudged wording has often seemed like the best option).
* to separate out different points where currently they are embrangled in a single clause.
* to utilise best 'plain English' practice.
And most important of all
* to boil the essentials down so they can be contained on a single A4 page.

In practical terms this sort of thing is beyond the scope of any AGM - a subcommittee has to take this on and eventually come up with recommendations that are either accepted en bloc, or not.  The current Regs are themselves the result of such an exercise.  The last time it was tried (4 or 5 years ago) the subcommittee got bogged down and eventually fell apart with no outcome.

[edit] need I add - that I am not a person who believes in the popular adage of if it ain't broke don't fix it. 

Thanks for the explanation FF

[Manotea]

As you say, John, there has to be a standard, the question is, which standard?

I don't regard BR Validation as a 'consolation prize', it's why I'm there.

BRM Validation is just the cherry on the cake.

Just don't bother about BRM - forget it. BR is fine.

Indeed. But if, say, you're riding the BCM, it's nice to get a BRM, as in PBP years it's the first 600BRM event in the calendar, so you can get your AUK SR and PBP entry sorted in one go. However for slower riders, under Proposal 9 you stand to come away with neither despite making the BR standard.

But it's not about me or you individually, but framing AUK regulations and policy to progressively support AUK objectives in a positive, open and consistent manner.

It seems to me inherently negative to regard our, that is, AUK's, own award as a 'consolation' prize.

[JohnHamilton]

The only need to change the regulations would be to mandate in the regulations that the organiser must offer the choice (increasing choice for the rider but reducing it for the organiser).

I don't follow the last point (in bold). Why *must*?

The organiser has a choice of validation/standards when registering their event:
- BR only
- BR OR BRM, each rider to choose which in advance
- BRM only

Should the last of these be an option, or should all organisers of BRM events be forced to offer the option of BR only validation (e.g. mr blacksheep may not want to keep his finish control open for another 1h20m. Should he have that choice?)

[JohnHamilton]

Indeed. But if, say, you're riding the BCM, it's nice to get a BRM, as in PBP years it's the first 600BRM event in the calendar, so you can get your AUK SR and PBP entry sorted in one go. However for slower riders, under Proposal 9 you stand to come away with neither despite making the BR standard.

If it's not a BR event why should the BR standard apply? Should we also offer BP validation to those who don't make the BR time limit?

It seems to me inherently negative to regard our, that is, AUK's, own award as a 'consolation' prize.

The OP's words not mine. I don't think anyone regards it as such. I suspect the majority of riders don't care if a ride is BR or BRM (I don't unless I'm after some award which specifically requires it).

[Bianchi Boy]

I have spent a number of days over the last few years in the presence of lawyers and I can feel this rule based argument going the way of many of these days.

IMHO. The organiser sets the standard and organisers the ride. I am glad they have gone to all that trouble. I ride and hopefully finish in the time set.

End of discussion.

What is all the fuss about?

[Manotea]

If it's not a BR event why should the BR standard apply?

We are talking bout a future where all events have a BR option, the issue then being whether it is BR or BRM ('all or nothing') or BR with BRM (BR validation if you make the AUK  standard plus BRM if you make the ACP standard).

Should we also offer BP validation to those who don't make the BR time limit?

No, though something similar was part of your Randonneur and Brevet award scheme.

What is all the fuss about?

Debating the rules and governance of AUK is all part of the fun.

Well, like fun, only different.

[Manotea]

The only need to change the regulations would be to mandate in the regulations that the organiser must offer the choice (increasing choice for the rider but reducing it for the organiser).

I don't follow the last point (in bold). Why *must*?

The organiser has a choice of validation/standards when registering their event:
- BR only
- BR OR BRM, each rider to choose which in advance
- BRM only

Should the last of these be an option, or should all organisers of BRM events be forced to offer the option of BR only validation (e.g. mr blacksheep may not want to keep his finish control open for another 1h20m. Should he have that choice?)

I didn't realise we currently had the option to select BR or BRM when registering an event? Just attempted to access the website but its down. I hope that's not PC slapping in a system change!

Elsewise surely it is down to the Org whether he is prepared to wait up for the BR stragglers? So, yes, he should.

[BlackSheep]

My word, there seem's to be a lot of pasion in this thread.

U.N.Dulates and I were discussing this privately late September, in the pub at the end of Mr. Pickwick goes to Hay in a Day. So we both know eachother's thoughts on the matter regarding the BCM.

Following my October event, Mr. Pickwick's Autumnal Outing, I had an equally interesting discussion (on the same subject) with another highly esteeemed AUK official.

All I can say on the matter, is we (the AUK membership), do not become "More catholic than the Pope", the pope in this being the ACP.

I've read the rationale behind the proposal, and if anything - it's that which really needs to be questioned. Such as. Is this a red-hot issue that must be settled now, if the answer is anything other than yes, there's already a mechanism in the AUK system that could be invoked. This would then give undisputeable evidence to further (or not) this proposal.

[frankly frankie]

Debating the rules and governance of AUK is all part of the fun.
Well, like fun, only different.

And this seems to be the best place to do it - being as how it's now an audax-only board.

As long as the topic line is clear enough (as it is here).

"* to utilise best 'plain English' practice."
I'm sure what FF meant was:
"* to use plain English."

 
Best left to somebody else then!

Pretentious, moi?

I didn't realise we currently had the option to select BR or BRM when registering an event?

Yes, it's there.  Depending on various factors, a newly-planned event will default to one or the other but you can change it if you do it as part of the first edit.  Later in the process it does tend to get locked out. 
PS the website's having a bad time but Pete and MattH are currently working very hard on it - a forced total migration.

[Manotea]

I didn't realise we currently had the option to select BR or BRM when registering an event?

Yes, it's there.  Depending on various factors, a newly-planned event will default to one or the other but you can change it if you do it as part of the first edit. 

Some confusion here: I repeated Johns's words from

The organiser has a choice of validation/standards when registering their event:
- BR only
- BR OR BRM, each rider to choose which in advance
- BRM only

Possibly he meant to write ' an organiser could register an event as BR and BRM, each rider to chose which in advance.

A coming feature?

[frankly frankie]

I see.  Sorry.