Re: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted

[Terry Woolley Howe <cancer@inetworld.net>]

Steph Teeter wrote:
> 
> I'd like some feedback from AERC members - and ride managers,
> on the existing completion time rule, and the desirability of an
> exception to it.
> 
> The current rule (5) states (briefly) that competitors are allowed
> 12 hours for 50 miles, 24 hours for 100, and so on according
> to the time/mileage chart. This includes all hold time.
> 
> I am *considering* proposing an exception to this rule, and would like
> pro & con feedback from the membership. The proposed exception
> would provide an 'escape clause' for ride managers to use when
> extenuating circumstances prevent a rider, or riders from finishing
> in the alloted time. Something like:
> 
> "Ride managers may, at their discretion, grant _completion only_
> (no points or placing) to riders who complete the course, but do
> not finish within the allowed time, due to extenuating circumstances."
> 
> Extenuating circumstances would include
> 1. weather and 'acts of God' - snow, rain, ice, earthquake :)
> 2. emergency relief acts - rider A spends 2 hrs helping rider B who is injured, and
> rider A goes on to finish the course overtime.
> 4. unforseen trail conditions - sabotage, downed trees, landslides, wash-outs
> 
> The reason I feel that an escape clause is desirable is
> that the existing rule is -in reality- not strictly adhered to. It puts
> ride managers in bad situation. Their options are to
> 1. Not give completion under any circumstances if a rider finishes over the
> allowed time.
> 2. Resanction the ride, (rule 1.3.1) after the fact, as a longer course. This is allowed if
> last minute changes to the trail were made, and the result is a longer
> course.
> 3. Fabricate the results, so that those riders who managment feels 'should' have
> credit, finish on time.
> 
> The latter recourse is often chosen - and condoned. And I personally
> have chosen it and condoned it in some circumstances.
> 
> ...so doesn't that make it a 'bad' rule? If it's frequently broken, but
> most feel that breaking it might be the right thing to do?
> 
> I'm not really fanatic about this, but the situation has been
> bothering me a little bit for a long time. Both managers and
> riders may suffer under the existing rule, but probably the ones
> who are harmed the most are the managers.
> 
> The bottom line (IMO) is that without volunteer ride managers, AERC doesn't
> have rides, and without rides, there is no AERC. The organization
> currently does very little, (other than giving info and guidelines
> and advertising through EN)  to support ride managers. If we can
> give managers a little more power and flexibilty by giving them a
> 'legal' option to an uncomfortable and fairly prevalent situation,
> then we benefit as an organization.
> 
> Of course this exception could be abused, but then so can most
> aspects of an endurance ride (mileage accuracy, course marking,
> leniency in granting 'fit to continue'  completion, etc). We have to
> assume that the ride manager will 'do the right thing' in all
> other aspects of managing a ride, and therefore should
> assume that the manager will 'do the right thing'
> regarding overtime exceptions, and not grant completion if it was
> not warranted.
> 
> whew!
> 
> lemme know if any of you have strong opinions one way or the other..
> 
> Steph