Re: RC: AERC Definition of LD

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:57:04 EDT, LTBeason@aol.com wrote:

>... The 0 - 49 rule was passed
>in an attempt to prevent unsanctioned events from being held in
>conjunction with a sanctioned event.  It was not passed so that
>AERC could (or would) sanction 5 mile Limited Distance rides.  It was
>not passed so that AERC could increase revenues by collecting fees
>from riders on fun rides.  It was passed so that AERC could regulate
>distance events associated with a sanctioned Endurance event.

This is a good example of the concept of "unintended consequences."
No doubt the people who proposed the change had good intentions, as
you point out.  The problem is that a radical blanket change was made
without all of the consequences fully considered or understood.  It if
had just been a rules change it would be easy to correct, but as it
was a Bylaws change it's going to be hard (and expensive) to correct.

It was also, IMO, an attempt to fix something that wasn't broke.  Now
we've got to fix the fix.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=