Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] [AERC-Members] Sanctioning issues - Truman Prevatt

Actually I would argue that the sanctioning needs more regional control - with the control point being a person with NO conflict of interest in the ride schedule. That is the manager of sanctioning for a region should have no interest in either running rides or vetting rides. It does not necessarly need to be a director, but if one of the directors has no conflict of interest there is no reason they cannot serve as the sanctioning manager.

Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. If there is a conflict or interest deal with it directly - don't screw up an otherwise good system.

Rides with national significance, ROC, AERC NC, Pioneer events that corss regional boundaries, etc.,  should be handled on a national level; but all regional rides should be handled on the regional level by people in the region.

I suspect the statistics will show (I'll look at that later) that in most regions the vast majority of the riders are from the region the ride in. The only interest from the national AERC level should be insuring the integrity of the sport. Hell the AERC can't even manage to enforce its own rules, why do we want to centeralize sanctioning with them.

Truman

Steph Teeter wrote:
 
AERC is more regionally oriented than USEF, and has more Endurance events, and therefore geography/demography is very critical when scheduling rides. Each region is different and the process needs regional input, but not total regional control. There are too many other (National/AERC) sanctioning issues to be considered.
I think the current sanctioning system that AERC uses is becoming less appropriate as the sport grows.
 
Steph


Replies
[RC] Sanctioning issues, Steph Teeter