Cycling news from the Bloomington Bike Community
West, I feel your pain. As much as I am friends with the Delts bikers, this was not a cool move. If I have learned anything from riding it's that respect in the cycling community is just as important as being a fast rider. I will always admire the rider who pulls their fair share and takes 2nd over the rider who sits in and takes 1st.The little 500 rulebook is partly to blame seeing as the rules are starting to create more problems then solve them. Can we please just let any student who goes to our school race?...I'm tired of watching.-Graham Dewart
Sad story here. I feel bad for you, Chris. You were always an all-around good guy and good cyclist during my time at IU.With that said, the final ruling does follow the letter of the law. But for IUSF to reverse its decision mid-stream is weak. Little 500 is governed by all of ten pages of eligibility requirements. That's it. The rules are not hard to understand. If Chris is ineligible this year, then I should have been recognized as a four-year rider in 2010; I had 3 races and 4 qualifications under my belt. (this is not meant to suggest bitterness on my part, only gross inconsistency in how rules are followed).Consistency, please, IUSF. It's sad that circumstances like this bring the issues to the forefront. Such things should have been resolved internally long ago.And DTD - that was a classless appeal. I'm calling BS on the lack of influence on Sojka from teammates and coaches. Race your bikes and win with your legs, not a rulebook. In the end, we're all fellow cyclists who share in a unique and special event.
Not like West was going to make Phi Delt win anyway... IUSF never should have okayed his appeal in the first place. I feel bad for the guy, but rules are rules. I'm with Graham, it's a damn intermural sport. Let people have fun and ride. It would be a better race if Dewart, Smith, and West could ride. Bailey should figure that out.
me think that Delts scared of little girls if they post sub 2:40 ITT. PROTEST
idk if the ruling makes sense or not. But i do understand the decision. The appeal was tasteless. Another case of riders worrying about things other than training for the race.
I understand but it is tasteless. They need some fish filet. Some sesame seed. Boom boom sticksDelts needs some dudes with dicks, not pussys
Wow Delts, if you can't beat em, get them kicked out huh? Incmy day i wanted to beat the best....i guess its different now. Straight girls is all i can say. Wow! Actually I take that back, the girls race doesn't even do that.....My only question is.....was this all RJ.....or a little bit of Neibler..........or dare I say Jordan B.........I hear he helped in writing the appeal. Conflict of interest if I do say so myself.
Hey Delts I have a question? If you get all of the top riders ineligable who are you going to ride behind and draft of off all race??? Bitches are scared to pull. Real men pull then pull out.......
Didn't mean to make mr. West upset??? Hahahahah that is this biggest piece of s*** I've ever read. Is that what Matt Neibler told you to say? Or RJ?
Disagree respectfully and sign your name. It's okay to be angry or have a differing opinion but at least show an element of maturity if your going to argue your claim. Learn from the first two posts.JT
I can't wait to see Lusk get bEat up on race day by the red jumpsuit clan. Get ready for hell hankypoo -Delt superstar Phildo
It's unfortunate that IUSF can't enforce the rules on their own and the riders are left to be the police and take the blame. The rules are clear in this case.
IUSF DID enforce the rules originally and West appealed his ineligibility, BOOM the system works. The problem there-in lies, how/why does someone protest an appeal? The same rulebook that made West not eligible is the same rulebook that made him eligible again and the same damn rulebook that allowed Phil to protest and make him not eligible again. Does it matter if it was Phil, the whole Delts team, alumni pressure or Keil coming back and crying like a baby? The system is flawed and situations like this bring that to light.
I agree the appeals process should be reviewed. To grant West an appeal in Feb 2011 and then reverse it is hard to accept. Both parties, Phi Delts and Delts went through the appropriate procedures to file the appeals, but in a case of eligibility like this, there should be a final ruling made earlier.Maybe the rule could be changed to IUSF posting when a rider or team has been granted an appeal and then other team have 30 days to file a protest against that appeal. That way, someone like West doesn't go a whole year thinking that he will be eligible.Like others have said, I am really curious as to what facts Delts brought to the table to convince IUSF to overturn West's eligibility.
Todd, that's a good idea. 30 days and that's it. The problem is smart people would keep this low key and not tell other teams about it and 30 days would go by an no one would care. But then the closer Little 5 comes, suddenly everyone cares. IUSF would have to make each appeal public so that teams would know to protest the ruling or not within that 30 days. One of my teammates didn't make grades. He appealed and won because he was friends with the race director and no one knew he had bad grades. He didn't race though, but rode quals.Who was responsible for the protest in 1993 to get rid of the mountain bike rider guy that mountain bike racer that rode for Cutters?
Art Keith was the Cutters rider and it was actually in 1994. Art took a year off in 1993, but he was the rider on the 1992 team who closed the final gap when we lapped the field.In 1994 when he rejoined, he thought he was eligible until the week of quals. My understanding of it is that Randy Spruill of Sigma Chi filed the appeal saying that an "Expert" mountain biker should be viewed as equivalent to a Cat 1/2. Spruill went on to win the sprint for Sigma Chi that year.Ironically, there was some question about Spruill being a Cat 2 at the time, but getting USCF (USA Cycling) to respond in those days was a bit harder because results and Categories were not on the internet. The Cutters would not have likely protested him anyway.The Cutters did try to file an injunction to get Art reinstated but it failed.
ISUF messed up by letting him in the race in the first place and realized that if he were to compete in his 5th year, it would open the door for anyone to appeal for a 5th year. The legal system works off precedence.And remember, Jordan Bailey wasn't the one who made this decision in the first place, he had to of been playing damage control throughout this whole process.IUSF didn't want to deal with every good rider staying a 5th year to dominate the race.
Any good rider can stay a 5th year you jackass. As long as they don't ride in the race or quals one year. See phi delt this year to remind yourself
"As long as they don't ride in the race or quals one year"Exactly... Chris west competed in quals...
West had an opportunity to make his case in front of the Appeals Board. Apparently he failed to make it compelling enough to convince a majority to rule in his favor. An additional hearing would not necessarity make this position any more valid. People don't get additional hearings in court because they didn't like the verdict.Maybe West should have had Woj go in with him, afterall he got Reike a second vote for HoF, because he didn't like the results of her fist chance.
what if jim nantz could narrate little 5?
I wish Gus Johnson did the play by play.
3:17In the american judicial system we have a thing called an appeal, this is a review of the case for new evidence or poor judicial procedure. In this case the fact he was told in 2011 he could ride and then had the ruling changed should/ would fall under the category of an additional appeal.I agree he should have had Woj come with him but only to show this issue has arisen before and Woj was allowed to ride 5 years. You also have your fact wrong about RIEKE, the reason she was granted a second vote was her senior year the IUSF dropped the ball on organizing the HOF committee. This body is supposed to review and bring riders up for a vote. The fact is this body did not meet because it was not asked by IUSF. So in fairness to everyone else in the race who has had the opportunity to be reviewed the next year the HOF committee did review Rieke and did bring her name up. She was then voted it by the riders.The fact is if West was no good he could have ridden 5 years and no one would have cared. This issue only shows how silly the IUSF's rules have become. If this is a true intramural event then all undergrad students should be allowed to compete. Fact is, for to long the IUSF have done what it wants when it wants to suit certain riders. Proof of this is the CAT 1/2 rule. Either allow them or don't when ever you have a grey area like they do now (enter as a 5 work your way up to pro) people will continue to challenge this rule (what if I am a 4 and cat up right before little 5 to a 2 can I still ride that race? Or am I kicked out? Should a wait a week to send paper work in to get the upgrade?) This type of silly and multi-what if rules only allow for more and more judgement by the IUSF rather then having a clear cut rule (All undergrads can ride who meet the grades).
Huge difference between Woj and West. Woj was clearly injured and didn't actually ride in quals or the race.
And became a member of the HOF.If you look back at the previous thread we have examples of people not injured who got to ride 5 years. I think this whole thing is silly, let the kid ride or don't just be consistent with the rules and stay to them.
Change the CAT 1/2 RULE!
The rule as written does serve a valuable purpose. It reduces recruiting and forces teams to develop riders from within. It also allows riders to progress and get better on the road which the old rule didn't do.I don't think the issue here is necessarily if West should be able to ride or not. I think the issue is how the appeal was handled and how the appeals rule is written.
Indeed. If new information comes to light regarding a precedent that could benefit West then could there be another re-appeal? That seems to be where the unfairness exists in the system. Shouldn't there be a Double Jeopardy rule (if I understand that correctly) here?West was deemed allowed to ride (by Pam's committee) but then stopped from riding (by Jordan's committee). If Jordan quit today and Matt Ewing was drafted in as a stop-gap replacement then surely he could reappeal for a more favourable result?
The TMT rule, definitely needs to be changed
Pam is gone. Jordan is in. Pam's ruling does not stand. Jordan's ruling stands. See ya.
West definitely got the shit end of the stick thanks to Pam or the appeals board that initially granted him eligibility. Quite simply the if West didn't have such good connections (with Pam), he would have never been granted eligibility for 2012 in the first place. Just because you were selected for riders council doesn't entitle to your own set of rules. I agree with Sojka here, keep the rules consistent for everyone. If you deny eligibility to dewart and smith because bullshit rules then deny West's eligibility as well. I happened to speak to a member of appeals board and apparently there was little deliberation; West was in clear violation of the L5 rules. Quite simply he's ineligible no matter how you look at, even if he gained favor with the asst. race director.While no one likes a whistleblower, it's neither immoral or against any unwritten rider's code to simply enforce the rules as they are written. Had it not been such a West favorable article, I would have expected more support for the rules.
free chris west
The rule is that you can appeal an appeal, but that's the end of the process. So if Ewing replaced Jordan tomorrow no additional appeals would be allowed. Period. End of story.As noted earlier, West got the shit end of the stick because an appeal that flew in the face of the rules was granted. That is the heart of the matter.That it took so little time for the current appeals board to undo the incorrect appeal shows what a cockup the original group committed.
I don't buy for a second that the coaches and other teammates did not influence the DTD appeal. Chris is one of the most humble and kind guys in this town. I just don't get going after him unless you felt threatened by the fact that your team couldn't compete with PDT.I agree with Geraint the double-jeopardy involved here is baffling. This is just another instance of Jordan being very different from Pam. Take it or leave it.Also, man up and sign your name to your comment. Own your online bravado. - Justin Keene
Post a Comment