Mar 4, 2011

Petition for 2012

Below is a petition produced by Ryan Kiel ( rpkiel@umail.iu.edu ) that he is asking IU students to sign regarding the eligibility requirements for Little 500 in 2012. Clearly Ryan feels as though this year the spirit of the law is being tested if not the absolute letter and I believe him when he says he has no issue regarding specific riders. Little 500 rules evolve all the time and IUSF have changed rules with much less notice than this but this is aimed at the future not the present. BTW this is not an opinion piece, just the facts.

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah I'll believe that he's got no issue with specific riders when me shit's turn purple and smell like rainbow sherbet. He's the ultimate example of why people lose to the cutters: they're scared to beat them. You can argue all you want but Kiel is ruining his race more than anyone else and also his team

Anonymous said...

No issue with specific riders? 4 and 5 are what Young has done and they are bolded...

Anonymous said...

Kiel forgot to mention in the petition that anyone who has ever beat him in anything is guilty of breaking the rules. This includes: checkers, cycling, being the biggest baby on campus, four-square, volleyball, etc.

Anonymous said...

Kiel, you gots to get back to da grammar school son. One thing is for certain, this has gotten Kiel face-time. Before his hissy fit, not to many people knew who he was

Anonymous said...

Weak sauce!

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if I can sign this. But I do like the biker boy drama.


-Anonymous-

Anonymous said...

You can all pick on Kiel as much as you like but it is hard to deny that the the rider in question is clearly a pro-level rider who has exploited a loop-hole in the Little 500 rules of eligibility. Bissell has clearly taken an interest in Young and noticed that his abilities are of pro-caliber. The current rider eligibility rules were written assuming that riders would upgrade when they were meant to which Young has failed to do. Kiel's petition would fix this and help maintain the purity of the Little 500 (an amateur intramural event). My question is one of motives: who deliberately neglects to upgrade to win an intramural race against cat 3-5 cyclists? You don't see me entering cat 5 races and then thinking I'm some hot-shot when no one can keep up...Also, let's not turn BVN into a "let's suck Cutters' collective dick" website or just rename it "cuttervelonews".

Anonymous said...

If this is not about a specific rider, then why was Kiel worried about the Cutters attending his meeting? If this is not about a specific rider then why did Kiel spend hours searching for pictures to tweet to the IDS? (some of which were not even Young) Ryan Kiel is the biggest cry baby loser in the history of the Little 500. He does not care about the race anywhere near as much as the person he is trying to ban. I wish he would grow a pair. Ryan Kiel; you are without a doubt the biggest pussy on the campus of Indiana University. Go away, everyone is sick of your bitching.

Tim said...

Hey, 10:30am, if you are such a fucking "MAN", why don't YOU stop hiding behind an anonymous post. Take about being a pussy!

Tom said...

This whole thing is a perfect example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. When Rhamy and Purvis changed the rule to allow riders to ride Little 500 as a Cat 1 or Cat 2, it was widely regarded as IUSF making an exception for Hans, who had moved up from a Cat 3the previous summer. Some people may remember that the rule was made retroactive to include Hans.

I would be willing to bet that if anyone at the time had presented a scenario of a rider moving to Cat 1 status in compliance with the rule and being considered by a pro team, everyone would have laughed and said: “This could never happen”. But here we are, and it has.

If you agree with the petition, sign it, if not, don’t. But I can assure you that even if it gets the signature of every rider, IUSF will not simply cut and paste it into the rules. They will consider the points and if they act, it will be in an intelligent and measured manner. This, because the current decision makers at IUSF, unlike their some of their predecessors, will look at how this will affect the future and consider the “Law of Unintended Consequences”.

Tom

Anonymous said...

As a category 3 cyclist, who should be a 2, you either have to stop racing or face an auto-upgrade. The rider has to make a conscious decision whether to retain your eligibility for L5 for more than one year but not continue to race, or to continue racing but only have one more year of eligibility.

The same rules do not apply to category 1 cyclists. There is no auto-upgrade to pro.

An individual who has accepted team clothing, bikes, helmets, gear, etc. from a professional team, taken several days or a week off school to fly to team camp paid for by a professional team to ride with that professional team, and in all other manners acts as a part of that team - with the sole exception of not letting the team put his/her name on the press release until April 17 - is at the very least skirting the rules.

Whether amateur teams also provide kits or bikes is irrelevant. We aren't talking about an amateur team, we're talking about a professional team, giving the professional team kit, the professional team bike, the professional team gear to a professional(?) rider.

Whether professional riders should be allowed in the race is equally irrelevant. They aren't. Maybe they should be (they can race for a collegiate national championship despite being a pro, why not a L5 ring?), but that's an entirely different question than the one that is facing the L5 community right now.

Wes said...

The race is to raise scholarship money for students in need. It's an entertainment event. You do not have to participate. If you don't want to race against Eric sit it out. That would have a greater impact and send a message to IUSF.

Chris said...

I saw this coming a mile away. Let's see how many rules can be broken with the new rules they are proposing here.

1) Instead of a forward dated contract, it will just be a verbal agreement.

2) All bikes and gear shipped the day after Little 5 or kept in riders basement until the day after Little 5.

3) Rider now participate in unofficial pro team rides. Hey let's all meet at the bakehouse and go for a ride. It's not mandatory and anyone can come but the whole pro team just might be there.

4)A rider that is a Cat 1 can accept bikes and gear from a Cat 1 team with a washed up local pro on it, but a rider who is a Cat 1 may not accept bikes from a pro team. That doesn't seem fair. How about no one can receive any bikes or gear from anyone other than their team sponsor on their jersey, dorm or housing unit on raceday.

5) This rule makes it sound like Eric's a millionaire or something. I don't think he needs an agent quite yet. This would be a non issue I think unless a rider flaunts it.

As far as the protest goes, I get it sort of. I would never protest because I thought I would win regardless of who was in the race, but I know many teams protested Josh Weir, for doing similar things albeit in a much shadier way....although Courtney was encouraged by IUSF to find these guys any way he could and then apparently the IUSF pretended to know nothing about it when the shit hit the fan. I think IUSF is doing a much better job with Pam in place to hold firm and look at these issues more deeply like Tom mentioned.

Go Cutters!

Anonymous said...

This rule is not aimed to ban Eric from the race, this rule is written to be implemented in 2012 and forward. Eric is riding this year, so stop the discussion about if he should or not. Btw, I think this rule is BS and everyone should be allowed to ride if they have developed through Little 5 like Eric has. Perfect example.

Chris said...

Well originally, it sounds like a protest was being formed behind Cutters backs to get him out this year. Or was that about next year too? if so why weren't the Cutters invited? The Cutters love a good discussion.

And every clause in the protest is referring to Eric without saying his name.

My rule would be if you did not come onto campus as a pro, Cat 1 or 2, you should be allowed to ride all 4 years because your talent was developed by training for little 5 and it's good to have role models like that. Actually I would let anyone race pro or not if they are a student. It's more fun to watch but for others maybe not so fun to race against so I would concede that part of the rule.

Hans said...

Echo Anonymous above: What a great example and model! Time to be grateful for the L5 and the excitement for cycling (and talent) it cultivates.

Todd said...

"You don't see me entering cat 5 races and then thinking I'm some hot-shot when no one can keep up.."

Let's start with this comment. Little 5 is not a Cat 5 race. If it was this petition wouldn't exist. Little 5 is a different animal.

Secondly, I really like the rule as is. It discourages recruiting and provides a means for development unlike the previous rule which greatly hampered development.

Third, legislating for the exception is a very dangerous thing. As Tom pointed about unintended consequences are not good, especially when in the 5 years of the new rule, one rider has fallen into this category.

Finally, if enacted, there is almost no way for IUSF to regulate any of those five items. The current rule is very easy, pull up a rider's stats on uscf.

Patrick Shelton said...

Agree with Chris, the kid came in as a cat 5, worked his ass off, and did something that every other serious cyclist could only dream of. As a fellow little fiver, props to Eric, far as I know he works harder and is more dedicated then anyone else around. I know it sucks people feel like he is just far and beyond the normal ability level for this event but there's nothing wrong with raising the bar. I don't understand what the big deal is, since when is there a penalty for success.
-Greg Bortz

Chris said...

It is relevant because accepting free bikes from an amateur Cat 1-2 team is not any different than playing in the minor leagues. You're still accepting gifts from a semi-pro league who races against other pros in races. Semi pro is still pro and they made exceptions for that. I would just leave the rule as is as I don't think Eric skated any current rule, and i don't think it's fair that semi pro riders can receive gear but not a semi pro about to ride for a pro team but not yet....I also don't think it's not that big of a deal because it will almost never happen.

Anonymous said...

If Eric gets to ride, Cutters get ready to be boo'ed off stage when you take the trophy.

When the IDS gets its hands on this story and picture... it'll pretty much be over for your credibility within the overall student body.

Eric rules tho.

Todd said...

We've been boo'ed off the stage the last two years.

If working hard and being dedicated is going to earn boos, let the boos come.

Anonymous said...

It isn't about the gear. It is about the fact that receiving gear, trips, etc. from a professional team demonstrates that you are a member of that professional team.

What if he races as a Bissel team member prior to the race but doesn't apply for the pro license? Still technically not a professional under the rules.

Anonymous said...

I have no specific issue with a co-worker but they sometimes show me up by outperforming me professionally. I think I'll draft a petition to get them fired.

Kiel, your mediocrity is absolutely astounding! What will you do when you're in the real world and realize that others outperform you? Is this really the path you want to walk? Life is a meritocracy. You achieve success through hard work, committment, and raw talent. I have a hard time beleiving that your parents would even sign this silly petition.

Kaleb said...

I understand - though do not agree with - the concern held by Ryan. With that said, these rules are going to be quite difficult to enforce, no?

As the current rules read, eligibility can be more or less determined by checking a rider's USA Cycling license. If this proposal would be accepted, how would it be enforced? Will riders be subject to random home inspections? Will riders have to report their whereabouts at all times (a la Michael Rasmussen)?

I feel like it has been forgotten that this is a team race. Eric cannot, by rule, ride all 200 laps. If people are so certain that he is invincible, then find a way to beat his teammates such that Eric cannot salvage the race!

(and one more note: technically speaking, if I borrowed a set of Zipp wheels for a race under loan from a local pro team, I would be violating Rule 4, no?)

Todd said...

Kaleb is dead on!

What if as a summer intern a Little 5er works for a pro team?

Answer: just violated 1, 2, maybe 3, maybe 4.

What qualifies as an official team ride? Quorum of team members? Posted on their twitter? Coach present?

What if a Little 5er meets up with a pro team on the road? Do they have to go the other way?

What if during the summer a pro team let's a Little 5er borrow a pair of wheels after a mechanical?

I understand these do not meet the intent of the petition, but they all violate the "infractions" listed.

Anonymous said...

Twenty bucks say the Cutters fail to qualify. End of story.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bissellprocycling.com/

Chris Hill said...

Kaleb and I, as former teammates, tend to agree on issues such as this. Those rules are practically unenforceable.

If the other teams can't drop the hammer and work together when Eric is not in the race to increase their collective advantage, then they deserve to be in a sprint with him. Also, even if they end up in a sprint with Eric Young, it does not mean he will automatically win. He's the heavy favorite, yes, but it's all about placement.

Simply being the strongest rider in a race is nowhere near a guarantee of victory. If that was so, Cancellara would have won every race he ever entered. Winning takes strength, intelligence, and luck.

Anonymous said...

Being in team photos shouldn't be allowed either ;)

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a gearing restriction? All you have to do is match his cadence to not get dropped. It's simple math. You're college students, right?

Anonymous said...

If I have to side with either Todd or Ryan Kiel there is a problem.

Can someone present a third option for everyone except for the Cutters to agree on like normal?

-R said...

Kiel,
I don't know you personally, but this doesn't speak well about your spirit as a competitor. In spite of the facts and some good discussion on the prior post, you continued to push this issue and have now put out this petition? The level of ambiguity in your proposed rules is amazing.

I've ridden/raced w/ many of you, inluding Eric. What's great about this community is that we have some great cyclists among us. I can't see how anyone would be anything but excited for Eric or anyone else that demonstrates great success on the bike...especially when they're tied to the L5 crowd.

I fully expected everyone to embrace Eric's success this year. The protest that we're seeing can't be anything other than jealously in my mind. Why cheapen the event by excluding talented participants.

Instead of exluding talented local ambassadors of the sport such as Young, Dewart, etc why not let them all race and they can have a B or C race prior to the men's race. Maybe that would be more equitable. It works for USAC.

Rob T.

Anonymous said...

Have any of these people against Eric racing not seen Hoosiers? Someone needs to be the Jimmy Chitwood and beat Eric in the sprint haha

adamrodkey said...

"Have any of these people against Eric racing not seen Hoosiers?"

Anyone seen "Bluechips?" Sorry, but both films were shot in my Hometown. And are both relevant to this situation.

Kevin said...

Tom,

I don't know that I would characterize the current Cat 2 rule as being implemented by Rhamy and Purvis. I'm not sure if the wording has changed in recent manuals, but I worked on the wording with other riders when I was on Riders Council.

People seem to think it was put in place for Hans to ride, but he just happened to be one of the first beneficiaries (and the fastest that year). When I helped write it, I actually had Craig Luekens in mind (who had already graduated). Craig started as a freshman wearing gym shorts on rides, and two or three summers later he had to sit up at the end of summer races so he wasn't automatically upgraded. The spirit of the rule is to allow (and encourage) development through Little 5. I think it actually works pretty well.

To the current riders - it seems that just about every year the fastest rider is tagged as being "too fast" for Little 5. My last two years it was Hans. We lost to him when he lapped the field in '06, but I wouldn't have wanted to win a race where he was banned for being too fast. He just beat us. Eric is obviously a gifted rider, but any amount of bikes, team trips, and coaching advice cannot make you get out on your bike and train. Sometimes people just have more talent. That won't end with Little 5.

Kevin

Anonymous said...

i think it should be left margin aligned. imo. that would fix everything.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why everyone is so scared of Eric? Yeah he's a great rider, but he can be beaten on any given day. The only rider I'm scared of on the track is Matt Witt. Unstoppable.

Tom said...

Kevin, why was the rule made retroactive for Hans? He had already moved to being a Cat2.

Tom

Anonymous said...

"Why cheapen the event by excluding talented participants."

truth

Anonymous said...

Tom loves drama!

Truth 3.2

Anonymous said...

Tom,

There is no calendar year for Little 500. There is no date that a rule must be implemented to be effective for that year's Little 500 or for the following year.

The Cat 1/2 rule was enacted in the fall, after rider's council was selected and it was discussed by rider's council. It is hard to say that it was retroactively put in place. I agree Hans was a Cat 2 by the time the rule was implemented, but he gambled whether or not he would ride in 2006 when he upgraded.

It seems that the only way this rule would not have been made "retroactively" as you put it, would for IUSF to simply implement it over the summer with no input from riders. As Kevin said the issue presented itself when riders were stunting their growth to participate in Little 500 (like Luekens), not to solely allow Hans to ride in 2006.

Drew

Kevin said...

Tom,

I guess it depends on the way you look at it. Hans had ridden three races before upgrading. Maybe you could make the argument that he upgraded while the old rules were still in place, but I think it would have been odd to enact the rule in the fall and then exclude Hans. I think excluding him would have been pretty arbitrary, but that's just my take. I'm sure rule changes have been applied inconsistently to issues like this, though, so I see the argument.

On a side note, I think Eric's development is very much an intended consequence of the rule in my mind. It sounds like he had no cycling experience before Little 5, has worked hard, and still cares enough about the race that got him into cycling that he hasn't signed a contract so he can do one more race. Sounds awesome and speaks highly to to the appeal of Little 5. The problem with trying to modify the rules as the petition states is that it is hard to see a clear line of how a rider can become ineligible. There is too much interpretation, and IUSF would be stuck hearing and deciding on appeals.

Kevin

Anonymous said...

So what's the point of having rules, if thay are applied in an arbitrary fashion?

Anonymous said...

Eligibility should be determined in the first year of participation and then maintained through consecutive years of participation. It should be a GOAL of Little 5 (as well as IU and the Bloomington cycling community) to encourage and nurture all L5 participants to achieve their maximum potential as cyclists.
No PRO can participate as in incoming rider, but all incoming riders should be encouraged to become PRO, and when they do, it should be embraced as a success!

Anonymous said...

oh so P-R-O

Anonymous said...

how many people have taken advantage of the so-called "Hans Rule"? here's who I can think of:

Hans Arnesen, ATO (2006)
Alex Bishop, Cutters (2007)
David Caughlin, Cutters (2007)
Isaac Neff, BKB (2008)
Mike Sherer, Dodds House (2008)
Sasha Land, Cutters (2008)
Erik Hamilton, Cutters, (2008)
Graham Gifford, Dodds House (2009)
Ren-Jay Shei, BKB (2010)
Clayton Feldman, Cutters (2010)
Matt Kiel, Gray Goat (2010)
Ryan Kiel, Gray Goat (2011)
Eric Young, Cutters (2011)

Am I missing any?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

how many people have taken advantage of the so-called "Hans Rule"? here's who I can think of:

Hans Arnesen, ATO (2006)
Alex Bishop, Cutters (2007)
David Caughlin, Cutters (2007)
Isaac Neff, BKB (2008)
Mike Sherer, Dodds House (2008)
Sasha Land, Cutters (2008)
Erik Hamilton, Cutters, (2008)
Graham Gifford, Dodds House (2009)
Ren-Jay Shei, BKB (2010)
Clayton Feldman, Cutters (2010)
Matt Kiel, Gray Goat (2010)
Ryan Kiel, Gray Goat (2011)
Eric Young, Cutters (2011)

Am I missing any?



....yeah but but ...

Eric is really good. (and that's no fair)

(Glad to see Ryan hoist by his own petard.)

Anonymous said...

Ban Marian from collegiate cycling! They are paid riders!

Anonymous said...

The guy that wrote the protest would have been protested just 10 years ago for being too good. A Cat 1 or 2 trying to get a Cat 1 soon to be pro banned, before he tried to save face and do a 2012 petition instead is really pathetic. I could see if he was just a regular joe, but man this is just super weak.

Anonymous said...

Wow I didn't know Kiel was a 2... that is interesting that he's the one complaining all this. What is he going to do this summer when he toes the line against Young?

Anonymous said...

He won't be in the tour of colorado so I doubt it will be a problem

Anonymous said...

Ryan Kiel needs to grow a pair and stop whining.

Hello, Young is ONE PERSON, you have an entire team, and you're all riding goofy ass bikes, so whatever.

Ride your damn bike instead of typing up petitions...

Remember, while you were typing your little petition, Eric Young was out busting his ass...your choice man.

How many signatures has this thing gotten so far?

Anonymous said...

What a huge blubbering vagina!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have IU results from this past weekend? Preferably Men's and women's A's and B's???

thanks.

Tom said...

If you are talking about OSU, the races were cancelled due to ice on the course.

Anonymous said...

Check this photo out.

http://assets1.mytrainsite.com/501217/teamphoto_bannerbtc211-010.jpg.

Who is that first guy in the front row?

Anonymous said...

Wow, Young on the team banner. . .I still think he should race. Let's have some fun out there.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Are you saying the Road Race and the Crit were canceled?

Anonymous said...

Tom-

FALSE, only the crit on Sunday was canceled at OSU. The road race was run, but cut short due to the weather. In the men's A's Young was 10th and Catanzaro 17th, they were the only 2 IU men's riders in the points. not sure on other results.

Tom said...

Sorry,

I just read the subject of the email Nathan Dugan about refunds.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Young was 10th! Oh my goodness, he's beatable.

Anonymous said...

Not on the cinders, unfortunately for you.

Anonymous said...

That post link came down quick!!! Love it!!! ......Let him ride, .....Holy Josh Weir, ......can't wait for this year!!! (Unintentional ryhme)

Anonymous said...

http://assets1.mytrainsite.com/501217/teamphoto_bannerbtc211-010.jpg

There was a period at the end, the photo is still up there.