Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Argument for..



Hi, all!
	Been waiting for someone to comment on this and nobody has!  So I figured
I might as well!
	I think I detected a major error in Lem Beason's column in the August EN,
"The Argument For the 0-49 Rule".  He states "no fees are paid to AERC
(sanctioning or otherwise)...."  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you
will!), but the original intention certainly was to collect fees for these
rides!  Mr. Beasom himself, in his explanation of where the rule
originated, states "some ride managers, in order to avoid paying
sanctioning, rider, or drug fees to AERC...were holding 24 mile rides".
This (non-payment of fees) was the loophole the by-law change was intended
to close.  Then it was discovered that shorter training/novice rides (10-15
miles) would be affected as well; various other problems arose, and the
decision to 'sanction short rides (shorter than 25) but not collect fees'
was made as a TEMPORARY measure to allow the 1999 season to proceed without
major upheavals.  Should this by-law be adopted, will AERC not return to
wanting to collect these fees?  Or is it going to be stated somewhere that
the fees will be 'forgiven' in perpetuity?
	Copying this to Randy Eiland and the AERC office so that somebody official
can 'set me straight' if they want!

Terre (who still hasn't gotten the @%$$ questionnaire, and doesn't expect
it for a couple more weeks! in Canada)  


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



    Check it Out!    

Home    Events    Groups    Rider Directory    Market    RideCamp    Stuff

Back to TOC