Author Topic: 50% rule  (Read 3821 times)

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2017, 10:33:14 pm »
There have been infrequent instances where a rider's brevet has been validated despite the brevet card having missing controls because of other riders vouching for them.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Feanor

  • It's mostly downhill from here.
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2017, 10:38:37 pm »
There have been infrequent instances where a rider's brevet has been validated despite the brevet card having missing controls because of other riders vouching for them.

Sure.
We know he was at this control, and was seen and/or had has card stamped.

But we have no idea how he got there.

There may be the *occasional* circumstance where other riders can say 'Yes, this dude was with us all the way from the Perineum to Glans controls', I'd say this is not robust enough to justify the 50% rule.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2017, 10:45:55 pm »
AUK doesn't have compulsory routes for most brevets. Those riders can take any route they like. On the other hand, repeatedly jumping in a car is likely to get noticed eventually. As I said previously, I think it would be useful for AUK to be able to say "You've cheated. In the future, you can enter as many brevets as you like but none of them will be validated."
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2017, 10:48:53 pm »
then the possibilities for cheating are always there.

'cheating' at Audax.....heavens above, how low can human life possibly descent too?
I'd like to think I had a go a robbing a few banks [as in tunneling underground for a month only to be caught with all the gear in Spain] before I fell into the nadir of 'cheating at Audax'.
Garry Broad

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2017, 10:56:19 pm »
Unless all Audax events become mandatory route with GPX validation, then the possibilities for cheating are always there.


As others have noted, gpx validation doesnt really solve the problem when it comes to Perms.

As for others cheating , why should it devalue your ride? Its your ride not theirs.

More to the point, if a rider were out to deliberately 'cheat then the one thing they don't get to do is brag about it.

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2017, 11:15:50 pm »
If you choose to shortcut the official route, or (even worse) jump on a train (car, or caravan), you are just cheating yourself. Really!
I also remember when the 50/50 rule came into force. I only recollect it concerned an individual, who was in contention with the points championship, and was not 'working' a day job at the time. Consequently, he had almost every day he could spend amazing points riding DIY routes (bear in mind, this was way, way pre-GPS - so keep receipts). I shall say no more, but feathers were rustled and the motion passed at haste!

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2017, 06:20:41 am »
There have been infrequent instances where a rider's brevet has been validated despite the brevet card having missing controls because of other riders vouching for them.

Indeed, I once validated a rider who had lost his card a the final control. Some riders had already stated that he was with them for the first day on that 600. When he arrived at the finish and reported that he had lost his card, I asked him to hand me his GPS. At the finish I copied his track to my netbook, doublechecked it with the route and concluded that it was ok. So I validated.


LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2017, 06:52:34 am »
I also remember when the 50/50 rule came into force. I only recollect it concerned an individual, who was in contention with the points championship, and was not 'working' a day job at the time. Consequently, he had almost every day he could spend amazing points riding DIY routes (bear in mind, this was way, way pre-GPS - so keep receipts). I shall say no more, but feathers were rustled and the motion passed at haste!

It was pre-DIY perms. Were Mesh perms or Hostel Darts the most flexible permanent options back then? For newer AUKs, both are extinct brevet styles.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2017, 07:34:33 am »
It was pre mesh perms, 1992 i think was the year the 50/50 rule came in.

Interestingly the individual who was cheating also ran off with some members money, but thats another story.

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2017, 07:57:47 am »
There have been infrequent instances where a rider's brevet has been validated despite the brevet card having missing controls because of other riders vouching for them.

Indeed, I once validated a rider who had lost his card a the final control. Some riders had already stated that he was with them for the first day on that 600. When he arrived at the finish and reported that he had lost his card, I asked him to hand me his GPS. At the finish I copied his track to my netbook, doublechecked it with the route and concluded that it was ok. So I validated.
The nightmares I had about losing my card before BUM, and it turns out it may not have been game over after all.
   Eddington  81 miles  112 kms

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2017, 09:22:29 am »
It has been known, in foreign parts I might add, for other riders to offer to validate a card if a control was accidentally missed.

I believe this was perfectly acceptable to the organiser.

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2017, 10:29:43 am »
I've frequently witnessed controllers doing incredibly helpful, generous, common sense and flexible applications of rules in support of riders - and have once benefited from this myself when arriving at a manned control around 6am having ridden straight through the night on a 600, hands too frozen to write, brain in that state specific to Audax - no matter what I tried to say, only inaudible mumbles emerged. The controller made an assumption that someone in my state, and only minutes inside the cutoff, had probably passed the info control even though the brevet card wasn't complete, and he wrote it in for me despite my incoherence. I almost cried in gratitude.

As a controller myself I might occasionally have appeared to have misread my watch when a rider could have appeared to a different observer to have been a minute or two behind the cutoff.

 I've only ever once seen something and thought "hmm, that looked a bit generous".

As so often the case, isn't the most important rule "thou shalt not take the piss", with (to steal from LWaB) the penalty being a lifetime ban and AUK exclusion for anyone proven to have cheated?
R10000 x 2   RRtY x 7    SR x 7    E = 128

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2017, 11:26:17 am »
It has been known, in foreign parts I might add, for other riders to offer to validate a card if a control was accidentally missed.

I believe this was perfectly acceptable to the organiser.

And in the UK as I stopped at a control, purchased 'stuff' and forgot to ask for a receipt as I was being barracked by some very esteemed members of AUK, one of which signed my card at the next control to vouch for my presence at previous control.  I did have GPS track if required but Org said it was not required as chap that signed my card could be trusted.  Excellent pragmatism!

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2017, 11:32:07 am »
It's often said that AUK look for reasons to validate a ride, not for reasons to not validate a ride.

(I've had a calendar ride validated that I didn't even finish.)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

3peaker

  • RRTY Mad 29-up! Series 30 ongoing
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2017, 12:20:40 pm »
If you choose to shortcut the official route, or (even worse) jump on a train (car, or caravan), you are just cheating yourself. Really!
I also remember when the 50/50 rule came into force. I only recollect it concerned an individual, who was in contention with the points championship, and was not 'working' a day job at the time. Consequently, he had almost every day he could spend amazing points riding DIY routes (bear in mind, this was way, way pre-GPS - so keep receipts). I shall say no more, but feathers were rustled and the motion passed at haste!

Think you should use he/she; do not assume male!

Whatever the excuses, I can be proud that ALL my trophies have been achieved through correct abiding by the 'Rules'.
SteveP

Promoting : Cheltenham Flyer 200, Cider with Rosie 150, Character Coln 100 22 Mar 20.

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2017, 12:35:01 pm »
While we seem to be discussing cheating at Audax, I was once aware of one particular rider on a PBP 600km qualifier, who had been reported by other riders as being behind them as they left controls, only to find him ahead at the next control, even though whenever anyone had seen him in action his progress was rather too slow to have allowed this.  He still got his ride validated, as the Organiser only had hear say rather than direct evidence of cheating.  He DNFd the subsequent PBP, which seemed like justice. 

I know from personal experience that having completed the SR qualifiers is no guarantee of PBP success, so I couldn't imagine going to the trouble of travelling to Paris without qualifying.  You'd just be setting yourself up for a bigger, and more expensive, fail.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2017, 01:18:19 pm »
While we seem to be discussing cheating at Audax, I was once aware of one particular rider on a PBP 600km qualifier, who had been reported by other riders as being behind them as they left controls, only to find him ahead at the next control, even though whenever anyone had seen him in action his progress was rather too slow to have allowed this.  He still got his ride validated, as the Organiser only had hear say rather than direct evidence of cheating.

I think that is a problem resulting from requiring a too high standard of evidence.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2017, 01:44:05 pm »
I don't know how you'd address that sort of situation. Riders are always leapfrogging each other on the road, so if somebody was taking serious shortcuts, whatever, then I'd be looking at the route and control positioning.

Otherwise its about right overall... strict enough to keep people honest... flexible enough to give the benefit of the doubt where merited.

Who decides? We'll, that's a matter for the org and auk... the point is, riders short on PoP, whatever, cannot assume, so better to be safe than sorry.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2017, 01:57:46 pm »
It's often said that AUK look for reasons to validate a ride, not for reasons to not validate a ride.

This is the point, and many of the replies upthread should be read in the light of this.
The people (and there are many of them, if you include organisers) who are tasked with reviewing (I won't say 'scrutinising') the proofs of passage generally start with the assumption that what they have in front of them is kosher.  Only if a particular possible problem is pointed out (eg, an organiser refers an irregularity to Auk Central - or, the GPX checker software throws up a red flag) are they going to look closer.  Even then more often than not a validation will still be the end result.

I feel myself that there should be just a bit more scepticism built into the process - for example the checker software could easily be tuned to be more sceptical, more prone to throw up red flags - but the people in charge of it at Board level are happier keeping everything more trust-based.
"This is a complex subject, with a need for more than one highlighter pen."

Re: 50% rule
« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2017, 03:15:09 pm »
While we seem to be discussing cheating at Audax, I was once aware of one particular rider on a PBP 600km qualifier, who had been reported by other riders as being behind them as they left controls, only to find him ahead at the next control, even though whenever anyone had seen him in action his progress was rather too slow to have allowed this.  He still got his ride validated, as the Organiser only had hear say rather than direct evidence of cheating.

I think that is a problem resulting from requiring a too high standard of evidence.

Assuming it's the incident I'm thinking of, it resulted from the organiser's desire to have some actual evidence to justify a decision not to validate, rather than a few bits of hearsay that might have had a perfectly innocent explanation.

As DC says, the rider subsequently DNFd PBP: had he in fact completed, it might have lent some support to his assertion that he'd also satisfactorily completed the qualifier in question.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2017, 04:38:26 pm »
It's often said that AUK look for reasons to validate a ride, not for reasons to not validate a ride.

This is the point, and many of the replies upthread should be read in the light of this.
The people (and there are many of them, if you include organisers) who are tasked with reviewing (I won't say 'scrutinising') the proofs of passage generally start with the assumption that what they have in front of them is kosher.  Only if a particular possible problem is pointed out (eg, an organiser refers an irregularity to Auk Central - or, the GPX checker software throws up a red flag) are they going to look closer.  Even then more often than not a validation will still be the end result.

I feel myself that there should be just a bit more scepticism built into the process - for example the checker software could easily be tuned to be more sceptical, more prone to throw up red flags - but the people in charge of it at Board level are happier keeping everything more trust-based.
Seems a fair summary.

We can certainly say "it ain't broke", so why fix it? But I also think that any professional body doing similar - let's take exam boards as a not-very-similar example! - would at least be doing random checks of validation. I don't think that would be a bad thing in AUK, handled correctly; keep everyone on their toes, and maintain an understanding of what is expected.

BUT it probably isn't broke :)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2017, 06:22:05 pm »
Well for BRM events, ACP have the right to mount an independent roadside secret control, at any such event, without reference to AUK.  (Of course they'd be wasting their time 'cos advisory routes.)
"This is a complex subject, with a need for more than one highlighter pen."

Feanor

  • It's mostly downhill from here.
Re: 50% rule
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2017, 07:43:40 pm »
I expect that would be a waste of time and money.

I have a Gut Feeling that the cheat rate is so low that a random spot-check would be *highly* unlikely to discover the odd instance.