Megathread: Discussion on Vets and Juniors in the A3 category

buffalo

ragazzo wrote: »

I am still not sure exactly why you are bitching about the situation.

No bitching here, just trying to understand why the need to make exceptions for people with ability because they're older.

Again, to paraphrase your post:

ragazzo wrote: »

Do you mean if you get first unplaced vet in these races? = no points so you can take the money and rest easy.
Do you mean that you beat all the top junior riders and A3s?= 8 to 10 grading points depending on race distance so you get upgraded having shown that you are going well enough to beat the best of the rest.

A group of A2s with an actual handicap given can work well together to stay away from a small chasing group of A1s, giving a winning advantage to a single A2 who isn't necessarily able for A1. Or one decent weekend of stage racing can propel a rider up a cat.


If the problem is (and this seems to be at the core) that it's too big of a leap for some riders from A3 to A2, because the A2s have to race with the A1s so often, then that's a problem for everyone and should be tackled. Not band-aid solutions for just the older riders.

ragazzo

buffalo wrote: »

No bitching here, just trying to understand why the need to make exceptions for people with ability because they're older.

Again, to paraphrase your post:



A group of A2s with an actual handicap given can work well together to stay away from a small chasing group of A1s, giving a winning advantage to a single A2 who isn't necessarily able for A1. Or one decent weekend of stage racing can propel a rider up a cat.


If the problem is (and this seems to be at the core) that it's too big of a leap for some riders from A3 to A2, because the A2s have to race with the A1s so often, then that's a problem for everyone and should be tackled. Not band-aid solutions for just the older riders.

I agree with you on your final point/paragraph. I have stated that repeatedly as my belief. I do not understand why there is so much annoyance directed towards some vets because a solution to this problem has been found for them.

Surely the overall solution is not a bitching session about these vets on a forum but more a reasoned debate at the CI AGM and a solution regarding the problem with apparent lack of numbers at A1 racing level. It seems 40 something vets are winning these A1/2 races regularly so that points to an underlying issue with general rider ability at present.

More training/recovery and less whining on forums perhaps? Just sayin.....

wav1

My final word on this to the OP is
1 If you don't like or disagree with the system as is,bring,or get your club to bring a motion re same to the CI AGM in October.TBH I don't think you would get far with it but I may be wrong.
2 I Feel that the system is fair and I don't have a problem with ANY 50 plus rider staying A3.
3 It is still possible to achieve an upgrade from A3 despite the Juns and Vets.Many have already done so this year.
4 Refer to Number 1.As the season is well done and dusted come October,most guys that complain on here about things couldn't be bothered to even suss out when the AGM is on,never mind attend it and thrash out the problems.Then next season arrives and we moan all over again.

morana

The A stands for ability. The system was supposed to be ability based that is if you are scoring enough points for an upgrade up you go. I dont agree with people being downgraded on the basis of age.

The A2 category should be scrapped.

RayCun

ragazzo wrote: »

I agree with you on your final point/paragraph. I have stated that repeatedly as my belief. I do not understand why there is so much annoyance directed towards some vets because a solution to this problem has been found for them.

If the problem is a lack of A2 races, and too big a jump between A3 and what is effectively A1
and vets can dodge this problem by staying in A3 even though their results mean they should be moving into A2
then the vets are making the situation worse.
They're contributing to a buildup of riders in A3 and a shortage in A2, which means fewer A2 races.
And because the problem has been 'solved' for them, there is less pressure on CI to solve the problem for everyone

ragazzo

RayCun wrote: »

If the problem is a lack of A2 races, and too big a jump between A3 and what is effectively A1
and vets can dodge this problem by staying in A3 even though their results mean they should be moving into A2
then the vets are making the situation worse.
They're contributing to a buildup of riders in A3 and a shortage in A2, which means fewer A2 races.
And because the problem has been 'solved' for them, there is less pressure on CI to solve the problem for everyone

So this thread is a witch hunt against one rider it seems.
Bury it in whatever argument you choose but there is only one vet at the top of the A3 rankings who has not been upgraded to the nonsensical A2 category. One vet causing all this hot air!

Thanks Raycun for your honesty.

buffalo

ragazzo wrote: »

I agree with you on your final point/paragraph. I have stated that repeatedly as my belief. I do not understand why there is so much annoyance directed towards some vets because a solution to this problem has been found for them.

It's because, as RayCun puts it, the same problem exists for all racers, yet a solution is only being applied to a subset (the vets). Special treatment for a smaller group is naturally going to cause frustration, which then obfuscates the real problem, and stymies a wider resolution.

This talk of a witchhunt is unhelpful. I haven't looked at any rankings in quite some time, and certainly not the A3s. My opinions come as a rider in a category unaffected by all this, so less of the condescension please.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

My opinions come as a rider in a category unaffected by all this, so less of the condescension please.

Or "This is all a bit below me really."

Boom! Nice one! Now back to the Hamptons. Tra la la...

ragazzo

buffalo wrote: »

It's because, as RayCun puts it, the same problem exists for all racers, yet a solution is only being applied to a subset (the vets). Special treatment for a smaller group is naturally going to cause frustration, which then obfuscates the real problem, and stymies a wider resolution.

This talk of a witchhunt is unhelpful. I haven't looked at any rankings in quite some time, and certainly not the A3s. My opinions come as a rider in a category unaffected by all this, so less of the condescension please.

Condescension on my behalf? Are you serious?

Look at the A3 rankings, if you can lower yourself to that level, before you type such rubbish. That might be helpful as you would see the basis of this whole thread and you could then contribute some realistic points.

There is one vet over 50 years of age in this story. How he could be the root cause of all things wrong with the CI grading system is beyond me.
How could he possibly be causing this alleged huge backlog in A3 upgrades as one single rider?
Could you please explain what you mean? No need to let us all know that you are an A1 as I think that came across loud and clear.:)

buffalo

ragazzo wrote: »

Condescension on my behalf? Are you serious?

Yep. You began it with:

ragazzo wrote: »

The real A3 riders who deserve upgrades are stuck in A3 because children and old men will not let them win. It is just not fair. Boohoo boohoo.

Then this more recently:

ragazzo wrote: »

More training/recovery and less whining on forums perhaps? Just sayin.....

It’s not constructive.

ragazzo wrote: »

Look at the A3 rankings, if you can lower yourself to that level, before you type such rubbish. That might be helpful as you would see the basis of this whole thread and you could then contribute some realistic points.

There is one vet over 50 years of age in this story. How he could be the root cause of all things wrong with the CI grading system is beyond me.
How could he possibly be causing this alleged huge backlog in A3 upgrades as one single rider?
Could you please explain what you mean?

I mean I don’t have an issue with who is topping the rankings, I am puzzled as to why the grading system functions this way. Therefore it’s of no matter who is where or has how many points. Talk like that turns it into a personal vendetta against individuals, which does nobody any good.

I am interested in establishing whether this no upgrade rule is symptomatic of a wider problem (which it seems to be), and why there is no wider solution. I couldn't give a toss whether there's 1 vet at the top of A3 or 100, the system would still work the same in the morning. The fact that this year there might not be an issue does not prove that next year there won't be a problem under the same rules.

ragazzo wrote: »

No need to let us all know that you are an A1 as I think that came across loud and clear.:)

You were the one who asked…

ragazzo wrote: »

Have any of the posters who are unhappy with decisions made regarding riders personal upgrades/downgrades ever raced at A1 or similar level?

I’ve repeated it only in examples when necessary, or to illustrate that this is not a personal issue for me, which you seem insistent on spinning it as. Otherwise I suspect you may paint me as a bitter A3 who is unhappy that some dastardly pensioner stole my upgrade.

ragazzo

buffalo wrote: »

Yep. You began it with:



Then this more recently:


It’s not constructive.




I mean I don’t have an issue with who is topping the rankings, I am puzzled as to why the grading system functions this way. Therefore it’s of no matter who is where or has how many points. Talk like that turns it into a personal vendetta against individuals, which does nobody any good.

I am interested in establishing whether this no upgrade rule is symptomatic of a wider problem (which it seems to be), and why there is no wider solution. I couldn't give a toss whether there's 1 vet at the top of A3 or 100, the system would still work the same in the morning. The fact that this year there might not be an issue does not prove that next year there won't be a problem under the same rules.



You were the one who asked…



I’ve repeated it only in examples when necessary, or to illustrate that this is not a personal issue for me, which you seem insistent on spinning it as. Otherwise I suspect you may paint me as a bitter A3 who is unhappy that some dastardly pensioner stole my upgrade.

Taking sentences from a post and quoting them out of context in a claim of condescension is not adding to the discussion.

I have no wish to paint you as anything. I have no idea who you are and it does not interest me in the slightest so please wind your head in.

Despite all the questions and responses on this thread I still cannot understand how one 50+ year old rider could be causing a backlog in the upgrade system or denying a multitude of A3 riders their upgrade. I would like to hear any argument that proves or even lends credence to this notion.

It is obviously not reality and A3 riders are unable to obtain upgrades for other known or unknown reasons.
Maybe the present rule will change at the AGM if the posters here organise a motion through their clubs but even if it does I cannot see much change in the numbers earning upgrades from A3 next year.
I hope that I am wrong as it would be good to have more riders making it to A1 status.

Please somebody explain it to me as I must be missing a vital part of the reason.

RayCun

ragazzo wrote: »

So this thread is a witch hunt against one rider it seems.
Bury it in whatever argument you choose but there is only one vet at the top of the A3 rankings who has not been upgraded to the nonsensical A2 category. One vet causing all this hot air!

Thanks Raycun for your honesty.

I honestly have no idea who you are talking about.
If the normal regrading procedures have been changed for the benefit of just one person, is that a good thing?

fortis

Ragazzo

It's not actually a "witch hunt against one person" as you suggest. Also I suspect your robust defense of this means you either have skin in the game yourself or are friendly with some of the individuals involved.

If you read the original post ( I suspect you did at some point but forget in mid rant), the rules as they stand apply to any 45+. They are entitled to drop back to A3 from A1/2 at the beginning of the season. Regardless of points scored.

A few have availed of that. Quite a few of those have already moved back up again to A2 because they won races or scored 15 points or more. I'm not going to give specific examples on this forum (as I would be smacked on wrist by the mods) but I suggest you read stickybottle from about 2 weeks ago for example. In there is an interview with a particular rider who claims to have "well over 100 victories I've actually forgotton" who won a recent race and was then promoted. That particular rider is currently sitting on 7 point in A2. Which negates the argument that he is "getting his hole opened" in that category.

Same has happened a few times. Also another individual who won one race I can remember in the spring. Also in A2 now on 11 points. The individual who won the Roscommon race last weekend was A2 last year.

The individual you keep referring to being target of a "witch hunt" is over 50. He could upgrade himself according to the rules, but chose not to. He has well over the upgrade threshold. Was also A2 last year.

This isn't a witch hunt. It is pointing out facts. And the fact is that this arbitrary rule (which I can't find exists in any other country's cycling federation, I posted the UK rules earlier as an example) is implemented to suit a few individuals. And doesn't fix the larger problem which is numbers in the higher cats. In fact it is counterproductive to that.

Anyway I've seen enough on this particular thread, most seem in favour of this point of view. Of course you'll have to have the last word with your strawman proposals ragazzo so I'll leave you to it!

AGM is the place to discuss it.

fortis

I'll add one thing though it is slightly off topic

Rather than rant and rave and claim about "witch hunts" (which has been refuted) how about presenting some solutions?

Here is mine, that the points system be properly implemented. It's a pretty simple solution!

BY properly implemented I mean

1) Points are awarded as they currently are but with no exceptions as discussed at length already (i.e for vets or anyone else irrespective of age. An ability based system)

2) Juniors are awarded points in their own category (as currently happens) but so too are A3. So if juniors are say 1-2-3 in a race and a regular A3 rider is 4th then that rider is awarded 8 points. So on so forth until all the points are awarded accordingly. This is still only 12 places in a typical A3 standalone race! That's not happening right now. If juniors are the first 6 places in a race now they take all the points to their own category and none go to A3 category. This is fundamentally incorrect and wrong and a bad implementation of the current rules.

This is probably one of the bigger issues and needs some organisation and/or technology to solve. If you add up all the current juniors points (and bearing in mind it is only June), currently it stands at 945. Divide that by 15 points for promotion 945/15= 63. That's 63 riders that could have already been promoted out of A3 to A2. Take in to account the points awarded to "supervets" some of which have been taken to A2, the number of promotions is probably closer to 70-75. Also there are already 303 A3's on points of some sort so the likelihood is that if you distributed 945 points (more) among that group you would have more than 75 people moving up.

There are currently 274 A2 license holders. Adding close to 100 more riders to that category start to make it look like a feasible category which has been identified as the main problem by many.

And still plenty left in A3.

So why not tackle it this way? I suspect it is apathy largely. The argument that it is technically not feasible is lazy. I take part in a club league and every week we count back 10 riders in two separate groups there no bother using just a rudimentary camera (sometimes even a tablet device). It takes a little bit of work but not much. And riders don't even wear numbers (which are readily identifiable and mandatory in open racing. That's the whole point of them) Other countries use chips (Sweden for example introduced transponders for racing this year, €100 to buy it outright, €5 per race otherwise). Other sports like athletics and tri use chips successfully with much larger numbers involved.

And rather than just shoot down these suggestions, suggest other alternatives. Because it is very well to say "raise it at the AGM", but if people aren't informed and don't know the alternatives or perceived problems how will they know what to raise or suggested alternatives? That is what forums like this are for to invoke discussion.

Note:All figures were taken from the CI "Rider Rankings" website

lennymc

Did you go to the CI AGM last year and make these points? Will you go to the CI AGM this year and make these points?

fortis

Didn't make it last year for personal reasons but I will this year.

lennymc

I will look forward to that discussion

fortis

Me too I'm sure it will probably fall on deaf ears (hope not) but sur we have to try I guess

Lusk_Doyle

Good suggestions Fortis. Well reasoned and put.

Chips Lovell

Awarding points to the first A3s across the line was how it was originally meant to work, but Cycling Ireland abandoned that, saying it was technically unfeasible.

In my experience of CI AGMs, the motions that tend to pass are the ones that have the solution to the problem worked out in advance. So instead of saying "we should award points to the first 8 or 10 A3s across the line", you should aim for "we should award points to the first 8 or 10 A3s across the line and here's how we'll do it".

If you come up with a workable plan, I'd certainly support it.

By way of compromise with the Vets, why not treat them the same way as the Juniors, i.e. Vets aren't counted for A3 points? That way none of the older guys are forced into A1/A2 races and nobody can complain about losing out on points.

RayCun

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

By way of compromise with the Vets, why not treat them the same way as the Juniors, i.e. Vets aren't counted for A3 points? That way none of the older guys are forced into A1/A2 races and nobody can complain about losing out on points.

If the vets are good enough to win enough points at A3, why shouldn't they be promoted?

Chips Lovell

RayCun wrote: »

If the vets are good enough to win enough points at A3, why shouldn't they be promoted?

Because I think it's unreasonable to expect guys over the age of 50 to be obliged to do first cat races. If they want to go up, fair enough. If they feel they're not able for it anymore, let them stay.

RayCun

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Because I think it's unreasonable to expect guys over the age of 50 to be obliged to do first cat races. If they want to go up, fair enough. If they feel they're not able for it anymore, let them stay.

They're obviously not obliged to race if they don't want to.
But the point of having grades is to have people race other riders of the same standard. If you keep placing in A3, you are not A3 standard, you are A2 standard.

Chips Lovell

RayCun wrote: »

They're obviously not obliged to race if they don't want to.
But the point of having grades is to have people race other riders of the same standard. If you keep placing in A3, you are not A3 standard, you are A2 standard.

I disagree. I think for someone of that age, getting up in an A3 race is still possible, but surviving in an A1/A2 race less so.

fortis

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Awarding points to the first A3s across the line was how it was originally meant to work, but Cycling Ireland abandoned that, saying it was technically unfeasible.

In my experience of CI AGMs, the motions that tend to pass are the ones that have the solution to the problem worked out in advance. So instead of saying "we should award points to the first 8 or 10 A3s across the line", you should aim for "we should award points to the first 8 or 10 A3s across the line and here's how we'll do it".

If you come up with a workable plan, I'd certainly support it.

By way of compromise with the Vets, why not treat them the same way as the Juniors, i.e. Vets aren't counted for A3 points? That way none of the older guys are forced into A1/A2 races and nobody can complain about losing out on points.

True Oscar and I'll certainly look at proposals and solutions and present some findings. For instance Gorey caters for close to 200 riders every year and the results are efficiently processed every year by using 2 cameras, one on the line and one pointed forwards behind the line and mounted up high. The high camera would require some mechanism to mount to (it's mounted to back of a flat bed truck there) but its doable.

But CI surely have to take some responsibility here also rather than just dismiss a proposal I may submit as " unworkable ". They are a national sports organisation and as such have access to resource regular people don't. For instance they could reach out to the Swedish cycling federation and find out what transponder system they use, how they implemented it, how its working etc etc..

RayCun

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I disagree. I think for someone of that age, getting up in an A3 race is still possible, but surviving in an A1/A2 race less so.

I don't think it is automatically more difficult for a vet to move up than for a non vet. reductio ad absurdum - two riders, one a vet, one two days younger so not a vet. They do the same races and finish neck and neck in each one. The vet stays in A3 forever, finishing in the top three regularly. The guy two days younger has to lump it in the harder races

Chips Lovell

There's no "them" and "us" though. It's just us. While Cycling Ireland does have a small administrative staff, the vast majority of the work done in organising the sport is done by members volunteering their time. Say that at the AGM and I guarantee you half the room is going to be looking at you thinking "why don't you contact the Swedish Cycling Federation yourself".

Chips Lovell

RayCun wrote: »

I don't think it is automatically more difficult for a vet to move up than for a non vet. reductio ad absurdum - two riders, one a vet, one two days younger so not a vet. They do the same races and finish neck and neck in each one. The vet stays in A3 forever, finishing in the top three regularly. The guy two days younger has to lump it in the harder races

No, nobody wakes up one morning and find themselves old. But you do have to accept that people's physical capabilities do decline with age. And if you want to make allowances for that, you need to decide on a cut off point.

RobFowl

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

No, nobody wakes up one morning and find themselves old. .

Don't know when it happened but it did, sucks

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Don't know when it happened but it did, sucks

Yer' only a bleedin' whippersnappe!

Anyway I'll only feel old once I've taken that hour record in another 47 years....