BIKE.MSG[MSG,LES] - www.SailDart.org

PDheader:1977-09-04 17:28:00-07:00 fb0d2bf88a0a66ad4b8e09bb5866e525 ∂04-Sep-77 1728 LES Cheating, etc. To: MWK

I was worried about your non-appearance at IJCCAI, but subsequently heard that you got back here. I trust that you had a rewarding trip and are now in super condition. How much did I cheat? Well, I rode Route 2 from Seattle through Glacier Park plus one day of wheat fields, by which time I was bored out of my gord and skipped to upper Michigan. I no sooner started riding there than the rains descended, so we drove on another day, to Ottawa. From there on, I cheated only a little (to get around the freeways in the vicinity of Montreal) and rode through the Green Mountains of Vermont, thence to Boston. Overall, I rode about 1200 miles in 9 days and arrived on August 19 (two days ahead of schedule because of the rain-induced cheating). On the way back I rode the Northeast entrance to Yellowstone, namely Beartooth Pass (10,940 feet). The climb wasn't bad, but the headwinds were about 60 mph, gusting to 80 (really!) and laced with hail. Since I couldn't stay on the bike in those conditions, I walked the final 2 miles to the summit. When I mounted up to ride down the other side, I found that I had to keep it in fourth gear in order to pedal downhill against the headwinds! Awful. I commend you on surviving the midwest. I found it very hard to take even at automobile speeds. Les

PDheader:1978-06-13 14:30:00-07:00 33e1a0fec754af63117509a9d165c75f ∂13-Jun-78 1430 PBS via NBS-TIP#44 uscf2

I've just found out that you are at a meeting and probably will not be finished until after I have to head home tonight. I would like to discuss with youu (the last word on the previous line is an unintentional test of whether I've figured out how to use the delete key) thw status of the 1978 Annual Meeting Legislative agenda. I have received the following changes from Tom Boyden (the Richardson Bicycle Touring Club): 2) -, Change age of Masters to 45 through 54 and Grand Masters to 55 and over -Add to the new Part 9 of Bylaw IX: Awards may be given at 5 year age increments at the option of teh National Championship committee.. 12) -Add to the last sentence: ", and the District Representative has been notified by the sponsorship Committee Chairman." ***note:"sponsorship" should have been capitolized - pbs 14) -Handle these as separate proposals for sections 1 and 2. Effectivity (sic) date of #14 should be immediate. ***END OF CHANGES I realize that I do not know how to list and/or edit the message I've just typed. Good luck with reading it. I'll try to reach you tomorrow (Wednesday, June 14th). Best regards, Pete

PDheader:1979-06-15 15:13:00-07:00 80bd558a39d3f5679a84e2a77c8565a7 ∂15-Jun-79 1513 PBS via NBS-TIP meet 79 Greetings:

I've just gotten on and will list the agenda next. Regarding the order of sections: I'd just as soon leave it alone and I'd probably feel the same way if the order in the book were reversed. On a related issue do we now have, or can we produce easily, a proposal to change the mandatory representation requirements in the Central section to be the same as for the other sections? Several people have inquired as to why the currenbt situation exists. I don't know and can only guess that it must be the result of some long-forgotten ABL of A politics. I don't see this as a burning issue but it might be easy to work in. Best regards, Pete

PDheader:1979-06-15 15:48:00-07:00 51264c89cfadf620eb5996f8754595d1 ∂15-Jun-79 1548 PBS via NBS-TIP meet 79 - II

Good grief!!!! I've just listed all 14 page of the annual meeting adgenda and am slightly overwelmed. I'll go over it all toight at home. If I've anything to say early tonigtht I'll give yuou a call. But I probaly will nopt get to thius until after dinner, so why do'nt you give me a call on sunday night if you have any energy left. In any case you'll have my comments by monday morning at the latest. Have a good trip, Pete P.S. Where'd you get the gas for all your travels? P.

PDheader:1979-06-18 15:28:00-07:00 084a5f6e7152b00ea34b83bf24f84e88 ∂18-Jun-79 1528 PBS via NBS-TIP 79 Agenda Comments les:

My comments are in the order of the agenda, and the first numbers refer to your agenda numbers. 2.a, Section 8: change 'in his' to 'from the' 2.b 2.b It seems to me that the comment should xplicitly should say that this amendment would not, in itself, cause any change in the method of electing these officers. 2.c I was somewhat confused by the "If possible," in Section 8. Also, we might want to mention that this proposal would not increase the size of the Board of Directors. 2.d Couldn't the first two sentences be simplified? 2.f Change 'no longer' to 'have not existed for many years and do not' 2.g Ch 'mailed' to 'returned' in the 4th paragraph, and add 'and' to the next line. 5.a As I see it, this proposal would freeze all the fees and prevent any new programs such as the scock bike or promoter insurance programs. 5.b Suggest changing 'would' to 'could' in the commant and deleting the 'Recommend Rejection' 6.a Who appoints the Chairman of the Board of Appeals? We've talked about the rest of this amendment. 7.a Suggest adding: This is an example of legislation which is seriously defective in spit of its apparent reasonableness. The major problems are: "who would enforce this rule? and, What would be the penalty if it were violated? No race? 8 Suggest adding "RECAMMEND REJECTION. same comment as for #8 10.c I think we should recommend rejection because this would throw away an important tradition for no particularly good reason. 12. I think that there should be a comment that the board poassed the rule change to encourage intermediate racing without forcing the intermediates to by fancy equipment. I expect that there are a few more 12-14 year olds riding around on clinchers than are riding regularly in junior races. What do you think about adding a LC proposal to drop the 24-inch-wheel restriction for midgets? If you like the idea, please add it. The comment should point out that the gear restriction is not dependent on wheel size. 13.b Suggest deleting the next-to-last paragraph of the comment. That's all folks! Pete

PDheader:1986-01-03 18:00:00-08:00 b13649bd38a61c162d4835a511bb03c7 ∂03-Jan-86 1800 LES New West Campus Bicycle Planning To: Johnston@SU-SIERRA.ARPA CC: Nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA

This is an amplification of some remarks that I made at the NWC review on December 16. I intended this to be a rather short note, but it grew on me. I will admit to holding non-standard views on transportation planning, having used bicycles as my primary means of travel for most of my life and having been a Director of the United States Cycling Federation for the last six years. Of course, I think my views are "correct" and that the general public's love for automobiles is a bit perverted. I also know that people will not necessarily make the right choices unless those choices are made accessible and attractive. Les Earnest ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Campus Trasportation Alternatives As the high-density portion of the campus spreads, it remains important that people be able to get across campus quickly. Walking works well for most people up to distances of 200 yards or so, but travelling greater distances on foot costs a lot of time. Using a car to travel across campus is wasteful and inefficient, but many people do it for lack of better alternatives. Moving sidewalks such as those used in airports could be installed along main pedestrian routes and would work well for both able-bodied and handicapped travellers, but both the installation and maintenance costs would be enormous and these devices are known to fail frequently. A subterranean tramway could move people even more swiftly, but the cost would be higher still. Bicycles can provide quick transportation for most people at relatively low cost to the University provided that some accomodations are made in campus facilities. Of course, not everyone can ride a bicycle. Electric carts and wheelchairs will continue to be good alternatives for the handicapped. Campus bicycle planning has been negligible in the past and plans for the New West Campus seem to perpetuate the treatment of bicycle accomodations as an afterthought. The slightly sordid history of Stanford's (non-)planning for bicycles is reviewed below. If the use of bicycles for commuting to and from campus were encouraged, the need for automobile parking could be reduced. The needs of bicycle commuters mesh with those of local cyclists but are slightly more stringent, as discussed below. Based on analyses presented below, I recommend that the University take a more active role in planning for the efficient use of bicycles. The following specific accomodations are needed: (1) a circumferential bicycle route system around the central campus; (2) adequate parking and storage facilities for bikes on campus; (3) rational and firm law enforcement for cyclists and pedestrians. A Short History of Bicycle Planning at Stanford The invention of the modern "safety" bicycle (1885) coincided with the founding of Stanford. The original plans for the campus were based on horse-powered transportation and had no accomodations for bicycles. By the time Stanford opened, an increasing portion of the population was using bicycles as their primary means of transportation. In less than a decade, bicycles became a dominant part of urban transportation, but Stanford seems to have ignored this development. As it turned out, cycling was a fad that was dropped as soon as reasonably-priced automobiles appeared, just after the turn of the century. Thereafter, bikes came to be viewed as children's toys, though some diehard adults continued to ride them. Campus planning evolved around the automobile. The Oval roadway became a parking lot and was changed from two-way to one-way traffic. There was a small bike boom in the 1930s, apparently stimulated by depression economics, but campus planners remained loyal to the automobile. By the 1960s, the campus was getting rather spread out, with the construction of the Medical Center, Jordan Quad, and Tressider Union. The introduction of 10-speed bikes from Europe led to wider use of bicycles by the general population, including those who needed to cross the expanding campus in a hurry. Bicycle parking facilities were provided at various campus locations, consisting of horizontal concrete slabs with slots in them for bicycle wheels. These wheel-holders, which seem to be favored by architects because of their nice low horizontal lines, are virtually useless for bike parking for several reasons: (1) the holes in the slabs are too small to accomodate security cables or chains; (2) the tire slots are necessarily wide enough to hold fat tires, but this causes them to fail to hold thin-tired bikes upright; (3) when anyone leans on a bike with its tire in the slot, a bent wheel usually results. This fiasco was a typical result of having bicycle planning done by people who do not understand bicycles. There are still hundreds of these bike slots around campus, e.g. in front of Jordan, Jacks and Polya Halls and the East side of Meyer Library. Understandably, these slots are mostly unused. Their primary function seems to be to trip people who do not watch their feet. An even larger bicycle boom began in the early 1970s, apparently stimulated by gasoline shortages. By this time, campus planners seem to have figured out that vertical metal bicycle racks worked better. Commuting by bicycle became more popular but continued to be inhibited by two problems. 1. A good, lightweight bicycle is needed to travel any substantial distance, especially if there are hills to be negotiated, but bicycle theft and vandalism make it impractical to leave a good bicycle in an outside bike rack. Organized thieves periodically "harvest" bicycles from campus, using cable-cutters and other specialized equipment. 2. People who commute in warm weather arrive in an aromatic condition. While it is practical to bring a change of clothing, if there are no accessible shower facilities some nearby nostrils will inevitably be offended. The only practical solution to the first problem was to bring the bicycle indoors and, possibly, park it in one's office. This led to certain social problems with office-mates and others. There was no solution to the second problem, which meant that only socially-insensitive people (such as me) would commute regularly by bicycle. (I had showers installed in the D.C. Power Laboratory in 1972. I was also a member of the CSD planning committee for Margaret Jacks Hall and got the architect to include a shower in the design of that building. It was intended for use both by bikies and by noontime joggers. The Planning Office vetoed this plan and declined to give a reason for its action. The place where the shower was to go remains unused.) For decades, Stanford campus planners steadfastly declined to put in ramps that would provide bicycle access to campus, particularly the main quad. This problem was finally resolved when ramps were installed for the handicapped in the late '70s. The ramp from the Oval to the Main Quad, for example, is used much more frequently by cyclists and truckers making deliveries than by the handicapped. It should have been installed long ago and should be less kinky, but at least it exists now. By the early '80s, bicycle use on campus had increased enormously but there was still no secure storage for bicycles. In 1981 a food cooperative in the Computer Science Department obtained permission to install some bike lockers between the inner and outer quads near Jacks Hall. Since January 1982, these lockers have been rented for $6 a month each and there is demand for more lockers than exist. Unfortunately, these lockers are located next to a service road where vehicles occasionally back into them, bending the structure and causing doors to not open. A request for permission to install more lockers allegedly brought a response from the Planning Office that it might be necessary to remove the existing ones. Bicycle lanes were drawn on heavily-travelled Lasuen and White Plaza awhile ago, but there has been no noticeable enforcment of separation -- pedestrians regularly walk in the bike lanes and cyclists get around them by riding in the walkways. During class breaks, cyclists have to struggle through crowds of pedestrians in order to cross the campus. Pedestrians, in turn, feel threatened by bicycles. Occasionally, calls are heard for a ban on bicycles in the central campus. Signs saying "Walk Bikes" have been painted on the pavement in the shopping mall area in front of Tresidder. This makes little sense because these signs are visible only when there are few pedestrians present, which is exactly the time when going slow is less important. In fact, it should never be necessary for cyclists to dismount. What IS important is that cyclists be required to move slowly through large crowds, whether they walk or ride. Large crowds occur in various parts of the campus at certain times of day. An even stanger bit of guidance appeared a few weeks ago at the intersection of the bike route on Lasuen Mall and the gate leading to the Inner Quad. The pavement now bears a triangle with admonitions to "Yield" in all three directions. What would happen if all cyclists and pedestrians followed this advice? They would, of course, be deadlocked. Fortunately, it didn't take people long to figure out the correct solution to this problem: ignore the signs. I do not wish to imply that the intersection cited just above is not dangerous. I have witnessed many near-misses there and I expect that there have been a few collisions. In my opinion, the problem is not that cyclists and pedestrians are unwilling to "Yield" but rather that they are unable to see people on interesecting paths. Given the current litigious climate, I recommend that this problem be dealt with in some way before it costs the University big money. [There is a straightforward technical solution to this problem that I will happily disclose to anyone who is interested. This solution may have a political drawback, however.] Instead of responding to the rising tide of bicycles by creating ever more stringent and irrational regulations, I recommend that campus planners try to optimize the use of these practical devices. I believe that this can be accomplished at very low cost compared with the accomodations being made for automobiles. Bike Routes The principal advantage of cycling over walking is that it permits the rider to move rather swiftly with little effort. This advantage is lost if bicycles are intermixed with heavy pedestrian traffic -- a cyclist moving at pedestrian speeds would be better off walking. On the other hand, bicycles mix rather well with cars, provided that both follow the rules of the road. Like motorists, cyclists generally don't mind going a bit out of their way provided that they can maintain a reasonable speed. It has long been known that a practical way to get cars into and out of a congested area is to provide a combination of circumferential and radial routes. The same principle works for bikes. Campus Drive provides circumferential access for cars, despite an excessive use of stop signs, but is a bit too far out for bicycles. In order to separate heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic, I recommend tha a circumferential bike route be created around the central campus. It appears feasible to create one out of existing roadways and malls. Serra Street is already a major bike route. It should continue to be used as such and the planned Serra Mall in the N.W.C. should include a continuation of this bike route. This would form the North side of the circumferential route. On the West side, Via Ortega can be used. On the East side, I suggest using the Galvez Mall rather than Lasuen to avoid interference with the heavy pedestrian traffic on Lasuen. On the South side, either Panama Street and its continuation or Santa Teresa could be used. In either case, the South and East sides can be linked by a route that passes between Meyer Library and soon-to-be Sweet Hall. In the design of the circumferential bike route, every effort should be made to permit cyclists to maintain speed. Where the route enters roadways or crosses walkways, "Yield" signs should be used to resolve conflicts, but one direction (preferably the bike route) should always have the right-of-way. Stop signs are not be needed, I believe, even for cars. I suggest that radial routes into and through the central campus continue to be shared between pedestrians and cyclists. In order for this to work, cyclists must be required to adjust their speed in accordance with traffic density, as discussed below. Rules/Laws and Enforcement Pedestrians and bicycles don't mix readily because of their different mobilities. Cyclists can move ahead in a wide range of speeds but cannot change either their direction or speed very quickly. Pedestrians usually don't move very fast but can and do change directions quickly and do not necessarily move in the direction they are facing. Regulations on the use of bike routes and walkways must take these physical realities into accout. In order to ensure the efficient, non-interfering use of bike routes and walkways, some new regulations are needed as well as enforcement procedures. I have not examined the feasibility of handling these regulations administratively or whether it may be necessary to make them ordinances on enforceability grounds. Pedestrians must be prohibited from walking in bike routes except to cross. This is essentially the same regulation that applies to roads. While a cyclist with moderate skill can safely ride close to a fixed object such as a post, pedestrians often react to the sight or sound of an approaching bike in unexpected ways, including jumping directly into its path. Consequently, cyclists must be prohibited from riding close to pedestrians at high speed. This problem could be resolved by making cyclists dismount whenever they travel on a walkway, but that would be pointless if the walkway is unoccupied or there are few pedestrians. What is needed, I believe, is a "Reckless Riding Regulation" that says something like: "No cyclist moving faster than 5 MPH shall ride closer to a pedestrian than one arms-length." 5 MPH is slightly faster than walking speed. An arms-length is a good approximation to the short-term uncertainty in a pedestrian's position. In a heavy-traffic situation, this would require that cyclists move at about pedestrian speeds, as is required for safety. If such a regulation were adopted and enforced, there should be few problems with cyclists and pedestrians sharing some routes. In order to ensure compliance with regulations by pedestrians and cyclists, I believe that it will be necessary to have at least occasional patrols by bicycle-mounted enforcers (e.g. police) who issue citations that result in fines. Improper parking of bicycles will continue to be a problem no matter what else happens. Some people seem content to abandon their bikes in the middle of entranceways without regard to the problems this creates for others. [I note that this peoblem seems to get worse each Fall, which suggests that it is correlated with the arrival of new students. I do my part in furthering their education by picking up bikes that are in my way and moving them some distance off. This seems to get the message across -- I never have to move the same bike twice.] Given that not all bikes carry licenses, there is a pracitcal problem in enforcing parking regulations. I suggest that a bike-equivalent of the "Denver Boot" be tried, consisting of a heavy bar set and lock that can secure offending frames to some immovable object nearby. A notice on the bike would inform the owner that he can retrieve it by first paying a fine plus a deposit, for which he will receive a key (or the combination) to the lock. The deposit would be returned after the offender returned the bar and lock set. Bicycle Parking and Storage I find it useful to distinguish between bicycle parking (short-term, typically an hour or so) and storage (long term). For parking, bike racks of the vertical type found in many parts of campus work well. As discussed earlier, the concrete slots of the type that are also found in many parts of campus serve only to use up space and occasionally to trip pedestrians -- they do not function as parking devices. Bike racks do not work well for storage for several reasons: (a) they provide no protection against vandalism or the removal of components from bicycles; (b) with typical cables, they do not provide security against a thief with a bolt cutter; (c) they provide no protection against weather, which means that when it rains the seat is likely to absorb moisture and the chain and other components will rust. Because of these problems, it would be foolish to store a good bike in a bike rack. Practically, then, only cheap "clunkers" can be stored in the bike racks on campus. Even those are occasionally vandalized. This is a significant deterrent to the prospective bicycle commuter who would like to use a good bike. As mentioned above, there is a technical alternative that solves these problems: fully-enclosed bicycle lockers. While lockers are more expensive than racks, they are almost as efficient in their use of space. In fact, it is possible to stack bike lockers and store more bikes per unit area than in a bike rack. I recommend that bike lockers be provided on a rental basis in NWC and preferably in the older parts of campus as well. They could be integrated with the automobile parking facilities, but they would be more convenient if they were either adjacent to the circumferential bike route or integral with the buildings used for instruction and research. It would be reasonable to charge a fee similar to that for an "A" parking sticker for each bike locker. With plausible construction costs, or using commercially available lockers, such a fee would reach break-even within 3 years. Commuters' Needs While bike lockers will fill one of the needs of bicycle commuters, commuters also need to access a shower, at least in warm weather. Showers in athletic facilities are too far away, even if they were made available over a wider range of hours. A year and a half ago I got involved in acquiring a new building for a company that I founded. When I specified that showers for employees were to be included I was happy to discover that this feature is now standard in commercial buildings. In fact, I understand that such facilities are now required by the building code in some localities. Stanford has traditionally lagged behind the commercial world by a few years in its fringe benefits, while leading most of the free world in its Personnel bureaucracy. In order to maintain a lag of just eight years or so, shower facilities should be included in the plans for the New West Campus. Recommendations For the reasons discussed above, I make the following opinionated recommendations. 1. Campus planners should take all important transportation modes into account (currently cars, buses, bicycles, wheelchairs and feet) and should do their best to resolve conflicts and optimize the use of each mode. 2. Specific plans should be made for a circumferential bicycle route around the central campus, including the New West Campus. 3. Rules against pedestrians walking in bike routes should be made, advertised and enforced, as should rules against reckless cycling in walkways. 4. Vertical bike racks, typically made of metal, should be placed wherever bicycle parking facilities are needed. Existing concrete bike slots should be collected and sold to any fool who is willing to buy them. Failing that, those devices should be used for landfill. 5. Fully-enclosed bicycle lockers should be made available on campus for rental to those who need them. 6. Shower facilities should be provided in each new large building and in every cluster of smaller buildings, for use by employees who are cyclists or joggers.

PDheader:1986-01-05 09:55:00-08:00 6739ebbd2c968a5253bb3e2a3ef1f524 ∂05-Jan-86 0955 JOHNSTON@SU-SIERRA.ARPA Re: New West Campus Bicycle Planning Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Jan 86 09:55:32 PST Date: Sun 5 Jan 86 09:54:47-PST From: Jane E. Johnston <JOHNSTON@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Re: New West Campus Bicycle Planning To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Fri 3 Jan 86 18:00:00-PST

Les, I'm impressed with your bicycle-expertise! I will see that your memorandum is circulated to the appropriate planning folks and I am sure that your bicycle wisdom will be tapped quite frequently as the NWC begins to unfold! .begin narrow 50 .nofill; Thank you so much for taking the time to record your thoughts and ideas! They are extremely valuable to us! Sincerely, Jane -------

PDheader:1986-01-06 09:48:00-08:00 ab82e770d7f054cc666f322967ef82fd ∂06-Jan-86 0948 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: New West Campus Bicycle Planning Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jan 86 09:48:11 PST Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 09:45:12-PST From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Re: New West Campus Bicycle Planning To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA cc: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Fri 3 Jan 86 18:00:00-PST Message-ID: <12173112699.17.NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

Thanks, I'll see that your note gets attention on the Faculty Committee (FUTURES) that is advising on NWC. -Nils -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 08:01:00-08:00 03afb2567ab8cd2eb61eb00c2759a15a ∂15-Jan-86 0801 BJORK@SU-SCORE.ARPA Your bicycle screed Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 08:01:28 PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 07:58:29-PST From: Steven Bjork <BJORK@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Your bicycle screed To: les@SU-AI.ARPA Message-ID: <12175452566.9.BJORK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

...was wonderful! I have commuted from Mtn. View to Stanford for 11 months and have seen every problem that you mentioned. You can count on me to be a fanatical upholder of the Bicycle Ethic! --Steve -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 11:01:00-08:00 e51fbae0f418d47a8e3270b54c0f9d8d ∂15-Jan-86 1101 TREITEL@SU-SUSHI.ARPA bikes Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 11:01:36 PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 10:56:17-PST From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SU-SUSHI.ARPA> Subject: bikes To: les@SU-AI.ARPA cc: treitel@SU-SUSHI.ARPA Message-ID: <12175484934.20.TREITEL@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>

I agree ... but even I am old enough to know that the probabilty of a document being read by someone senior enough to act on it is inversely proportional to the exponential of its length. - Richard -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 13:26:00-08:00 c770f2f93f4eb2cca5094259436dbfb1 ∂15-Jan-86 1326 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA bicycles Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 13:25:50 PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 13:26:07-PST From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Subject: bicycles To: les@SU-AI.ARPA cc: KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Message-ID: <12175512211.33.KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

Les, On the whole your plan sounds great. I'd add one more suggestion. It is impossible for some people to bicycle to Stanford, e.g. because of distance, hills, and some people don't want to go to the trouble of changing, showering. Thus, these people won't have bicycles on campus. I thought your original intent was to discuss how to move people around campus, not how to deal with the problem of bicycle commuters. Thus, it occurred to me that there could be some way to have the University give or sell people cheap bikes that would it would be practical to use to traverse the campus with. I bet it would be cheaper to GIVE everyone on campus a cheap bike that it would be to build a fancy escalator-type system or an underground tramway. And it would probably suffice to simply have the University buy these from somewhere in huge quantities and pass the savings on to us. Thus people could have their own campus bike which they used to move around the campus. An even more radical approach would be to simply place these bikes at random around campus, and let people simply take one as needed, ride it somewhere, and leave it there. This could be analagous to supermarket carts, so it might be necessary to have roving crews that picked up bicycles left in obscure places and took them to central locations. Of course, the problem with this is that these bikes couldn't be locked, so outsiders might be tempted to steal them. But, if they were cheap enough and/or identified clearly, maby this wouldn't be a problem. I doubt that the University would go for anything so de-centralized, but you never know... Peter -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 13:35:00-08:00 976868ea3fe250b5456a470f2e903b12 ∂15-Jan-86 1335 HULL@SU-SCORE.ARPA Planning for bicycle traffic Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 13:35:14 PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 10:17:36-PST From: Kent Hull <HULL@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Planning for bicycle traffic To: les@SU-AI.ARPA Message-ID: <12175477891.47.HULL@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

re. your recent bboard essay: In the early '60s (dim recollection), I was told by a former student of Michigan State U (I think: could've been UMich) that the registered bicycle population was over 100% of student population, and that operation and parking of bicycles was more closely regulated than that of automobiles. The flavor of the description was that only mildly onerous regulation efficiently coped with hordes of bicyclists, and made bicycles the preferred mode of transportation (in the southern arctic, yet!). The planning documents and regulations used then might be more convincing as precedents to the SU Planning Office than mere reason (if you could get them reasonably easily): generous age-encrustation/evidence of continuous successful existence will convince most of that type of the desirability of even the most stupid things. Where you've reason on your side, too, use of the oldest support you can find should work (even if from a **lesser institution** - see Bruce Buchanan about that). Hope this advice is worth more than it cost you. Kent Hull (not a bicycle rider or owner, but only for reasons of current practicability) -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 13:51:00-08:00 c8c4d29ec396ed81a3d34b8cb84c11ed ∂15-Jan-86 1351 Y.YDUJ%LOTS-C.#Pup@SU-SCORE.ARPA Bicycle parking problems Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 13:48:55 PST Received: from LOTS-C by Score with Pup; Wed 15 Jan 86 10:29:27-PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 10:31:06-PST From: Judy Anderson <y.yduJ%LOTS-C@LOTS-C> Subject: Bicycle parking problems To: su-bboard%Score@LOTS-C Message-ID: <12175480351.12.Y.YDUJ@LOTS-C>

One of the problems with renting a locker is that when you are not there the locker is empty (isn't this correct?) One solution would be that which is used in ski areas and other places where transients want to store their belongings for a time: have coin operated lockers. We already have coin operated parking lots for cars; I can imagine that someone concerned with the security of their bicycle would be willing to drop two quarters in the slot to secure a locker. Judy. -------

PDheader:1986-01-15 13:52:00-08:00 c7153ecf6477a265fadf42cce7256ae7 ∂15-Jan-86 1352 LES re: bicycles To: KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 15 Jan 86 13:26:07-PST.]

Thank you for your interest. You might wish to consider sharing some of your thoughts with the bboard community. While the primary focus of my note was on campus transportation, I wanted to treat the needs of commuters because of the obvious shared-use connection. The communal bike idea has been tried before, both here and elsewhere, and found impractical. For example, there was the "white bike" movement that originated, as I recall, in Amsterdam in the late '60s and was started here shortly thereafter by the Midpeninsula Free University (a hippy organization centered on Stanford). Hundreds of bikes were acquired and painted white to signify that they were "free." Like most Free U. members, I donated to this project. This movement fell apart because, without personal ownership, the bikes were treated badly, broke down quickly and nobody felt responsible for repairing them. Their population dwindled and vanished in less than a year. Even though this experiment was undertaken on a grander scale in Amsterdam, the same thing happened there I am told. This can be cited as further evidence that communism doesn't work. Les

PDheader:1986-01-15 14:11:00-08:00 0dc061624e83343123e5b3e8076714c5 ∂15-Jan-86 1411 LES re: Planning for bicycle traffic To: HULL@SU-SCORE.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 15 Jan 86 10:17:36-PST.]

Your points are well taken. If I succeed in getting the attention of the administration, I plan to do some more research into solutions that have been found to work in other universities. Another potential source is U.C. Davis, which has been overrun with bicycles for longer than anyone can remember. Les

PDheader:1986-01-15 14:30:00-08:00 8d45b48156a048d39758f4ae012d7411 ∂15-Jan-86 1430 LES re: bikes To: TREITEL@SU-SUSHI.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 15 Jan 86 10:56:17-PST.]

You are right, but my goal at this point is to more to upset the administration than to convince them. Education takes time. There is some second-hand evidence of aggravation in high places already, which I hope can be transformed into dialog. Les

PDheader:1986-01-15 14:35:00-08:00 a99b20557b9c433e9f1d2600c8203351 ∂15-Jan-86 1435 MJOHNSON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA Re: Crossing the New West Campus Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86 14:35:28 PST Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 14:31:04-PST From: Vaughan Johnson <MJOHNSON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA> Subject: Re: Crossing the New West Campus To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA cc: MJOHNSON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 15 Jan 86 00:52:00-PST Message-ID: <12175524035.32.MJOHNSON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>

Good essay on bicycles. I hope some of the appropriate bureaucretins read it. I disagree with the suggestion of the standard metal bike racks, though. Most of them will not accomodate fat tires (like on my mountain bike). Also, although not as bad as the concrete blocks, they are likely rim benders, too. I tend to use a rack only when I can lean my bike against the end and lock it there. More often, I use signposts and fences/railings out of the way of traffic (primarialy pedestrian). My favorite intended bicycle parking places on campus are at CIS, but they're probably more expensive than the racks. The low clamp-type lock up frames Palo Alto has at City Hall are pretty good -- better than racks, and probably not as expensive as the CIS type. Thanks again, Vaughan Johnson -------

PDheader:1986-01-16 00:05:00-08:00 7990713ee690e263089cdd26afec3ab6 ∂16-Jan-86 0005 LES re: Crossing the New West Campus To: MJOHNSON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 15 Jan 86 14:31:04-PST.]

Thanks for your insights. I confess that even though I grew up on fat tires, I have ridden only thin tires the last dozen years, so I was not aware of the problem with some metal bike racks. It seems to me that we need either a good set of specs for bike rack procurers to work from or, more likely, a rack certification procedure, in which each proposed new kind of rack is subjected to a series of tests. I will add that to my agenda. Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-01-16 00:35:00-08:00 8c64a20cace65f2b59a2b3490deb708e ∂16-Jan-86 0035 JDLH@SU-SUSHI.ARPA Re: Crossing the New West Campus Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jan 86 00:35:19 PST Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 00:32:16-PST From: Jim DeLaHunt <JDLH@SU-SUSHI.ARPA> Subject: Re: Crossing the New West Campus To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 15 Jan 86 00:52:00-PST Message-ID: <12175633480.37.JDLH@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>

Hear, hear! Have you submitted that to Campus Report? If not, it might not hurt to try. And if you can let me know when planning meetings are, I'd be glad to come along and be part of a "groundswell" in favour of bike facilities! --Jim DeLaHunt JDLH @ Sushi -------

PDheader:1986-01-16 01:12:00-08:00 ee17925065dc164ec90ed561e9c0c9cb ∂16-Jan-86 0112 LES re: Crossing the New West Campus To: JDLH@SU-SUSHI.ARPA [In reply to message sent Thu 16 Jan 86 00:32:16-PST.]

Thanks for your support. I did think vaguely about offering to do an article for the Campus Report or perhaps the Daily but have taken no action yet. It might be a good idea to let the BBoard folks kick this around a bit first -- I have learned a few things already. As far as I know there are no regularly scheduled meetings for review of the New West Campus. I was invited to attend one on December 16 along with Nils Nilsson and a number of other CS faculty members, but that will probably be my last chance for awhile. I suspect that there will be an opportunity for student views to be expressed through representatives but there will probably not be any public forums. If I hear of any, I'll let you know. Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-01-17 00:39:00-08:00 9b31fbdb19d689e49359888bc0482571 ∂17-Jan-86 0039 LES Planning for Bicycles To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA

Judy Anderson's suggestion that coin-operated bike lockers be provided is an interesting one. Reliable coin acceptors are fairly expensive, so this would run up the cost a bit, but I believe that it would be useful to have some lockers of this type on campus in addition to long-term rental units. I received quite a few private communications in support of my harangue on "Crossing the New West Campus." Some offered additional interesting information or suggestions, as follows. INFLUENCING POLICYMAKERS. One person said, in effect, that my essay was too long to be read by anyone senior enough to act on it. Indeed, one senior administrator who was sent a copy (not by me) was heard to complain loudly about having to get through such an enormous message -- it seems that he had not yet mastered the art of deleting a message without reading it. Poor fellow. BICYCLE ACTIVISM IS NOT NEW. I learned of the successful exploits of an earlier cycling advocate. It seems that a series of bike ramps was built between Jordan Quad and the Main Quad in the early '60s only after certain administrators were bludgeoned (in writing) by George Forsythe, who was both an avid cyclist and principal founder of the Computer Science Department. (Forsythe Hall is named in his honor.) CHEAPER PARKING. One person felt that since bicycle commuters may have to come to work by car occasionally (e.g. when making a trip somewhere) they should qualify for a limited parking option that is less expensive than buying a regular parking sticker. That would seem fair, but hard to administer. Of course, pay lots provide this function, though they are rather expensive if you use them much. My favorite gambit is to throw my bike in the trunk of my car (dangling out), drive to the nearest free parking area on campus, then ride the rest of the way. FATSOS NEED TO BE HELD TOO. Another person grumbled that the slots in some metal bike racks on campus are too narrow to take the fat tires on his mountain bike. This points up the need for careful qualification procedures in the selection of bike racks for campus use. COPY OTHER CAMPUS CYCLING CAPERS. A good suggestion was made that we review the ways in which other college campuses with large bicycle populations are coping with their problems. GO PUBLIC. Another suggestion was made that we try to get something published on the bicycle planning issue in Campus Report. Not a bad idea. FREE BIKES. Still another suggestion was that the university buy a lot of cheap bikes and leave them around campus for whoever wants to use them. I pointed out that this communal bike idea was tried earlier and found impractical. The "white bike" movement that originated, as I recall, in Amsterdam in the late '60s was taken up here shortly thereafter by the Midpeninsula Free University (a predominently hippy organization of that era, centered on Stanford). Scores of bikes were acquired and painted white to signify that they were "free." Like most Free U. members, I donated to this project. The white bike movement fell apart because, without personal ownership, the bikes were treated badly, broke down quickly and nobody felt responsible for repairing them. Some of them undoubtedly "leaked" to surrounding areas that had no free bike program. Their population dwindled and vanished in less than a year. Even though this experiment was undertaken on a grander scale in Amsterdam and was tried in a number of other places in the U.S., the same thing seems to have happened everywhere. This can be cited as further evidence that communism doesn't work. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1986-01-17 08:50:00-08:00 80ad581b6c006ad8db8fc431d9bb62ec ∂17-Jan-86 0850 REED@SU-SIERRA.ARPA free bicycles Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jan 86 08:50:12 PST Date: Fri 17 Jan 86 08:49:38-PST From: Michael L. Reed <REED@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: free bicycles To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Les - I agree that the free bicycles would be impractical here. However, I know of one place where it works quite well - Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of course, they have a chain link fence topped with barbed wire around their campus, and very thorough access control. The maintenance is taken care of by the lab - I think they only have one or two full time people for this, and about 2000 bicycles. All single speed with one hand brake, as I recall. You can just about always get a bike close to your building, except around lunchtime. What a place to find communism. - Michael -------

PDheader:1986-01-23 21:54:00-08:00 16254549ec8bb8924a327101f4267e76 ∂23-Jan-86 2154 B.BR@LOTS-B Your message regarding bike traffic, parking, etc. Received: from LOTS-B by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Jan-86 21:54 PST Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 21:53:07-PST From: Brian Reilly <B.BR@LOTS-B> Subject: Your message regarding bike traffic, parking, etc. To: les@SAIL Message-ID: <12177701659.122.B.BR@LOTS-B>

Hi - I read your recent message about the history and current state of bicycle use and planning here. I found it very interesting and informative - since arriving here in September I have been very surprised at how poorly the campus is organized for bike traffic. Before coming to Stanford, I worked at U.C. Davis. Davis bills itself as the "bicycle capital of the U.S." as you may know, and the contrast with Stanford is great. If you have never been to the Davis campus, it is very well planned with bike paths, parking, traffic circles in high traffic areas, and enforcement of bike laws. They have two bike cops who patrol on bicycle. Is there a committee which sets the policies at Stanford? Perhaps some information could be obtained from Davis which might be helpful to the planners here - if they are interested. If you think it might be useful, I'd be happy to look into it and let you know what I find. - Brian Reilly con.reilly@su-how -------

PDheader:1986-01-24 01:24:00-08:00 568acb47e346ee86fcdc6df9ea5bc0d8 ∂24-Jan-86 0124 LES re: Your message regarding bike traffic, parking, etc. To: B.BR@LOTS-B [In reply to message sent Thu 23 Jan 86 21:53:07-PST.]

Thanks for your interest. Having visited U.C. Davis a couple of times (including once to ride the Davis Double Century), I am aware of the high bicycle density there but know little about how they cope with it. I would be quite interested in any information that can be collected. As near as I can tell, there is no single entity at Staford that does planning for bicycles. The Planning Office obviously has an important role and I hope that my remarks will reach them, but there is no evidence that they are paying attention yet. In fact, they are likely to continue ignoring the problems unless nudged by the deanery. So far, I seem to have won some departmental support and the matter is being taken up by a committee composed of department chairmen, so there is hope. Let me know if you can get some reference material or contacts at U.C. Davis. Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-01-24 14:05:00-08:00 856206a39632a83859034c3ac5013022 ∂24-Jan-86 1405 B.BR@[36.48.0.2] re: Your message regarding bike traffic, parking, etc. Received: from LOTS-B by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jan 86 14:05:25 PST Date: Fri 24 Jan 86 14:03:55-PST From: Brian Reilly <B.BR@[36.48.0.2]> Subject: re: Your message regarding bike traffic, parking, etc. To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Fri 24 Jan 86 01:24:00-PST Message-ID: <12177878387.104.B.BR@LOTS-B>

Hi - I'll contact someone at U.C.D. and see what is available. I also may be making a trip there in the next couple of weeks, so I will check into it then also. This quarter I attended the first meeting of a Communication course called Formative Research for Message Design. The class project was to design an information campaign. I suggested that they do one on bicycle rules at Stanford. I decided not to attend the class, but if they do that it might be interesting to see what they come up with. - Brian Reilly ------- Crossing the New West Campus This is an amplification of some remarks that I made during a recent review of preliminary plans for the New West Campus. There was some chit-chat by participants about using various advanced transportation concepts for moving people across campus, but it appeared to me that these were impractical fantasies that helped obfuscate a continuing lack of planning for more basic modes of transportation: walking and cycling. I will admit to holding nonstandard views on transportation planning, having used bicycles as my primary means of travel for most of my life and having been an officer and director of the United States Cycling Federation for several years. I believe that many people take too easily to cars, elevators, and other "lazy" transportation modes when there are practical alternatives that provide a some pleasant exercise as a bonus. It is not my aim to enforce "correct" behavior but to ensure that the economical and beneficial alternatives of walking and cycling are accessible and attractive so that people will feel less obliged to choose laziness. I intended this to be a rather short note, but it grew on me -- 370 lines of flamage follow. Les Earnest ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Campus Transportation Alternatives As the high-density portion of the campus spreads, it remains important that people be able to get across campus quickly. Walking works well for most people up to distances of 400 meters or so, but travelling greater distances on foot costs a lot of time. Using a car to travel across campus is wasteful and inefficient, but many people do it for lack of better alternatives. Moving sidewalks such as those used in airports could be installed along main pedestrian routes and would work well for both able-bodied and handicapped travellers, but both the installation and maintenance costs would be enormous and these devices are known to fail frequently. A subterranean tramway could move people even more swiftly, but the cost would be higher still. Bicycles can provide quick transportation for most people at relatively low cost to the University provided that some accomodations are made in campus facilities. Of course, not everyone can ride a bicycle. Electric carts and wheelchairs will continue to be good alternatives for the handicapped. Campus bicycle planning has been negligible in the past and plans for the New West Campus seem to perpetuate the treatment of bicycle accomodations as an afterthought. The slightly sordid history of Stanford's (non-)planning for bicycles is reviewed below. If the use of bicycles for commuting to and from campus were encouraged, the need for automobile parking could be reduced. The needs of bicycle commuters mesh with those of local cyclists but are slightly more stringent, as discussed below. I recommend that the University take a more active role in planning for the efficient use of bicycles. The following specific accomodations are needed: (1) a circumferential bicycle route system around the central campus; (2) adequate parking and storage facilities for bikes on campus; (3) rational and firm law enforcement for cyclists and pedestrians. A Short History of Bicycle Planning at Stanford The invention of the modern "safety" bicycle in 1885 coincided with the founding of Stanford. The original plans for the campus were based on horse-powered transportation and had no accomodations for bicycles. By the time Stanford opened, an increasing portion of the population was using bicycles as their primary means of transportation. In less than a decade, bicycles became a dominant part of urban transportation thoughout the U.S., but Stanford seems to have ignored this development. As it turned out, cycling was a fad that was dropped as soon as reasonably-priced automobiles appeared, just after the turn of the century. Thereafter, bikes came to be viewed as children's toys, though some diehard adults continued to ride them. Campus planning evolved around the automobile. The Oval roadway became a parking lot and was changed from two-way to one-way traffic. There was a small bike boom in the 1930s, apparently stimulated by depression economics, but campus planners remained loyal to the automobile. By the 1960s, the campus was getting rather spread out, with the construction of the Medical Center, Jordan Quad, and Tresidder Union. The introduction of 10-speed bikes from Europe led to wider use of bicycles by the general population, including those who needed to cross the expanding campus in a hurry. Bicycle parking facilities were provided at various campus locations, consisting of horizontal concrete slabs with slots in them for bicycle wheels. These wheel-holders, which seem to be favored by architects because of their nice low horizontal lines, are virtually useless for bike parking for several reasons: (1) the holes in the slabs are too small to accomodate security cables or chains; (2) the tire slots are necessarily wide enough to hold fat tires, but this causes them to fail to hold thin-tired bikes upright; (3) when anyone leans on a bike with its tire in the slot, a bent wheel frequently results. This fiasco was a typical result of having bicycle planning done by people who do not understand bicycles. There are still hundreds of these bike slots around campus, e.g. in front of Jordan, Jacks and Polya Halls and the East side of Meyer Library. Understandably, these slots are mostly unused. Their primary function seems to be to trip people who do not watch their feet. A series of bike ramps was built between Jordan Quad and the Main Quad in the mid-'60s only after certain administrators were bludgeoned (in writing) by George Forsythe, who was both an avid cyclist and Founding Chairman of the Computer Science Department. (Forsythe Hall is named in his honor.) An even larger bicycle boom began in the early 1970s, apparently stimulated by gasoline shortages. By this time, campus planners seem to have figured out that vertical metal bicycle racks worked better. Commuting by bicycle became more popular but continued to be inhibited by two problems. 1. A good, lightweight bicycle is needed to travel any substantial distance, especially if there are hills to be negotiated, but bicycle theft and vandalism make it impractical to leave a good bicycle in an outside bike rack. Organized thieves periodically "harvest" bicycles from campus, using cable-cutters and other specialized equipment. 2. People who commute in warm weather arrive in an aromatic condition. While it is practical to bring a change of clothing, if there are no accessible shower facilities some nearby nostrils will inevitably be offended. The only practical solution to the first problem was to bring the bicycle indoors and, possibly, park it in one's office. This led to certain social problems with office-mates and others. There was no solution to the second problem, which meant that only socially-insensitive people (such as me) would commute regularly by bicycle. [I had showers installed in the D.C. Power Laboratory in 1972. I was also a member of the CSD planning committee for Margaret Jacks Hall and got the architect to include a shower in the design of that building. It was intended for use both by bikies and by noontime joggers. The Planning Office vetoed this plan and declined to give a reason for its action. The place where the shower was to go remains empty.] For decades Stanford campus planners steadfastly declined to put in ramps that would provide bicycle access to campus from all directions. This problem was finally resolved when ramps were installed for the handicapped in the late '70s. The ramp from the Oval to the Main Quad, for example, is used much more frequently by cyclists and truckers making deliveries than by the handicapped. It should have been installed long ago and should be less kinky, but at least it exists now. By the early '80s, bicycle use on campus had increased enormously but there was still no secure storage for bicycles. In 1981 a food cooperative in the Computer Science Department obtained permission to install some bike lockers between the inner and outer quads near Jacks Hall. Since January 1982, these lockers have been rented for $6 a month each and there is demand for more lockers than exist. Unfortunately, these lockers are located next to a service road where vehicles occasionally back into them, bending the structure and causing doors to not open. A request for permission to install more lockers brought a response from the Planning Office that it might be necessary to remove the existing ones. Bicycle lanes were drawn on heavily-travelled Lasuen and White Plaza awhile ago, but there has been no noticeable enforcement of separation -- pedestrians regularly walk in the bike lanes and cyclists get around them by riding in the walkways. During class breaks, cyclists have to struggle through crowds of pedestrians in order to cross the campus. Pedestrians, in turn, feel threatened by bicycles. Occasionally, calls are heard for a ban on bicycles in the central campus. Signs saying "Walk Bikes" have been painted on the pavement in the shopping mall area in front of Tresidder. This makes little sense because these signs are visible only when there are few pedestrians present -- at such times it is pointless to go slow. In fact, it should never be necessary for cyclists to dismount. What IS important is that cyclists be required to move slowly through large crowds, whether they walk or ride. Large crowds occur in various parts of the campus at certain times of day. An even stranger bit of guidance appeared a few weeks ago at the intersection of the bike route on Lasuen Mall and the gate leading to the Inner Quad. The pavement now bears a triangle with admonitions to "Yield" in all three directions. What would happen if all cyclists and pedestrians followed this advice? They would, of course, be deadlocked. Fortunately, it didn't take people long to figure out the correct solution to this problem: ignore the signs. I do not wish to imply that the intersection cited just above is not dangerous. I have witnessed many near-misses there and I expect that there have been a few collisions. In my opinion, the problem is not that cyclists and pedestrians are unwilling to "Yield" but rather that they are unable to see people on intersecting paths. Given the current litigious climate, I recommend that this problem be dealt with in some way before it costs the University big money. [There is a straightforward technical solution to this problem that I will happily disclose to anyone who is interested. This solution may have a political drawback, however.] Instead of responding to the rising tide of bicycles by creating ever more stringent and irrational regulations, I recommend that campus planners try to optimize the use of these practical devices. I believe that this can be accomplished at very low cost compared with the accomodations being made for automobiles. Bike Routes The principal advantage of cycling over walking is that it permits the rider to move rather swiftly with little effort. This advantage is lost if bicycles are intermixed with heavy pedestrian traffic -- a cyclist moving at pedestrian speeds would be better off walking. On the other hand, bicycles mix rather well with cars, provided that both follow the rules of the road. Like motorists, cyclists generally don't mind going a bit out of their way provided that they can maintain a reasonable speed. It has long been known that a practical way to get cars into and out of a congested area is to provide a combination of circumferential and radial routes. The same principle works for bikes. Campus Drive provides circumferential access for cars, despite an excessive use of stop signs, but is a bit too far out for bicycles. In order to separate heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic, I recommend that a circumferential bike route be created around the central campus. It appears feasible to create one out of existing roadways and malls. Serra Street is already a major bike route. It should continue to be used as such and the planned Serra Mall in the New West Campus should include a continuation of this bike route. This would form the North side of the circumferential route. On the West side, Via Ortega can be used. On the East side, I suggest using the Galvez Mall rather than Lasuen to avoid interference with the heavy pedestrian traffic on Lasuen. On the South side, either Panama Street and its continuation or Santa Teresa could be used. In either case, the South and East sides can be linked by a route that passes between Meyer Library and soon-to-be Sweet Hall. In the design of the circumferential bike route, every effort should be made to permit cyclists to maintain speed. Where the route enters roadways or crosses walkways, "Yield" signs should be used to resolve conflicts, but one direction (preferably the bike route) should always have priority. Stop signs are not be needed, I believe, even for cars. I suggest that radial routes into and through the central campus continue to be shared between pedestrians and cyclists. In order for this to work, cyclists must be required to adjust their speed in accordance with traffic density, as discussed below. Rules/Laws and Enforcement In order to ensure the efficient, non-interfering use of bike routes and walkways, some new regulations and enforcement procedures are needed. I have not examined the feasibility of handling these regulations administratively or whether it may be necessary to make them ordinances on enforceability grounds. In order to ensure compliance with regulations by pedestrians and cyclists, I believe that it will be necessary to have at least occasional patrols by bicycle-mounted enforcers (e.g. police) who issue citations that result in fines. Pedestrians and bicycles don't mix readily because of their different mobilities. Cyclists can move ahead in a wide range of speeds but cannot change either their direction or speed very quickly. Pedestrians usually don't move very fast but can and do change directions quickly and do not necessarily move in the direction they are facing. Regulations on the use of bike routes and walkways must take these physical realities into account. For the sake of efficiency, pedestrians must be prohibited from walking in bike routes except to cross. This is essentially the same regulation that applies to roads. While a cyclist with moderate skill can safely ride close to a fixed object such as a post, it is unsafe to ride close to a pedestrian. Pedestrians often react to the sight or sound of an approaching bike in unexpected ways, including jumping directly into its path. Consequently, cyclists must be prohibited from riding close to pedestrians at high speed. This problem could be resolved by making cyclists dismount whenever they travel on a walkway, but that would be pointless if the walkway is unoccupied or there are few pedestrians. What is needed, I believe, is a "Reckless Riding Regulation" that says something like: "No cyclist moving faster than 5 MPH shall ride closer to a pedestrian than one arms-length." 5 MPH is slightly faster than walking speed. An arms-length is a good approximation to the short-term uncertainty in a pedestrian's position. In a heavy-traffic situation, this would require that cyclists move at about pedestrian speeds, as is required for safety. In low-density situations, cyclists could move faster. If such a regulation were adopted and enforced, there should be few problems with cyclists and pedestrians sharing radial routes. Improper parking of bicycles will continue to be a problem no matter what else happens. Some people seem content to abandon their bikes in the middle of entranceways without regard to the problems this creates for others. This problem seems to get worse each Fall, which suggests that it is correlated with the arrival of new students. [I do my part in furthering their education by picking up bikes that are in my way and moving them some distance off. This seems to get the message across -- I do not recall having to move the same bike twice.] Given that not all bikes carry licenses, there is a practical problem in enforcing parking regulations. I suggest that a bike-equivalent of the "Denver Boot" be tried, consisting of a heavy bar set and lock that can secure offending frames to some immovable object nearby. A notice on the bike would inform the owner that he can retrieve it by first paying a fine plus a deposit, for which he will receive a key (or the combination) to the lock. The deposit would be refunded after the offender returned the bar and lock set. Bicycle Parking and Storage I find it useful to distinguish between bicycle parking (short-term, typically an hour or so) and storage (long term). For parking, bike racks of the vertical type found in many parts of campus work well. As discussed earlier, the concrete slots of the type that are also found in many parts of campus serve only to use up space and occasionally to trip pedestrians -- they do not function as parking devices. Bike racks do not work well for storage for several reasons: (a) they provide no protection against vandalism or the removal of components from bicycles; (b) with typical cables, they do not provide security against a thief with a bolt cutter; (c) they provide no protection against weather, which means that when it rains the seat is likely to absorb moisture and the chain and other components will rust. Because of these problems, it would be foolish to store a good bicycle in a bike rack. Practically, then, only cheap "clunkers" can be stored in the bike racks on campus. Even those are occasionally vandalized. This is a significant deterrent to the prospective bicycle commuter who would like to use a good bike. As mentioned above, there is a technical alternative that solves these problems: fully-enclosed bicycle lockers. While lockers are more expensive than racks, they are almost as efficient in their use of space. In fact, it is possible to stack bike lockers and store more bikes per unit area than in a bike rack. I recommend that bike lockers be provided on a rental basis in the New West Campus and preferably in the older parts of campus as well. They could be integrated with the automobile parking facilities, but they would be more convenient if they were either adjacent to the circumferential bike route or integral with the buildings used for instruction and research. It would be reasonable to charge a fee similar to that for an "A" parking sticker for each bike locker. With plausible construction costs, or using commercially available lockers, such a fee would reach break-even in about 3 years. Commuters' Needs While bike lockers will fill one of the needs of bicycle commuters, commuters also need to access a shower, at least in warm weather. Showers in athletic facilities are too far away, even if they were made available over a wider range of hours. A year and a half ago I got involved in acquiring a new building for a company that I founded. When I specified that showers were to be included I was happy to learn that this feature is now standard in commercial buildings. In fact, I understand that such facilities are now required by the building code in some localities. Stanford has traditionally lagged behind the commercial world by a few years in its fringe benefits, while leading most of the free world in its Personnel bureaucracy. In order to maintain a lag of just eight years or so, shower facilities should be included in the plans for the New West Campus. Recommendations For the reasons discussed above, I make the following recommendations. 1. In planning for the New West Campus, all important transportation modes (currently cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, wheelchairs and walking) should be taken into account and planners should do their best to resolve conflicts and optimize the use of each mode. 2. Specific plans should be made for a circumferential bicycle route around the central campus, including the New West Campus. 3. Rules against pedestrians walking in bike routes should be made, advertised and enforced, as should rules against reckless cycling in walkways. 4. Upright bike racks, typically made of metal, should be placed wherever bicycle parking facilities are needed. 5. Existing concrete bike slots should be collected and sold to any fool who is willing to buy them. Failing that, these useless devices should be used for landfill. 6. Fully-enclosed bicycle lockers should be made available on campus for rental to those who need them. 7. Shower facilities should be provided in each new large building and in every cluster of smaller buildings, for use by commuting cyclists and joggers.

PDheader:1986-02-25 17:09:00-08:00 882081cda79f9cb13b07d913e40a2d10 ∂25-Feb-86 1709 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA CONVERSATION WITH ERNIE Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 86 17:09:07 PST Date: Tue 25 Feb 86 17:09:14-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: CONVERSATION WITH ERNIE To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

TALKED TO ERNIE YESTERDAY REINFORCED THE IDEA THAT THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. HOWEVER THAT THE SECOND CLASS SHOULD BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION FOR THE TEST AT THE WORLDS. ALSO HE STILL BACKS UP THE MIXING OF UNLICENSED AND LICENSED RIDERS FOR COLLEGIATE RACES. ANY WAYS, I'LL TRY AND DROP BY SOMETIME. P.S. HOW WAS BRENTWOOD. THANKS FOR FILLING. -------

PDheader:1986-03-03 08:06:00-08:00 0b6346d3fdc61ebbd4151fd695b4c0f2 ∂03-Mar-86 0806 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA weekend happenings Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 86 08:06:10 PST Date: Mon 3 Mar 86 08:06:19-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: collegiate cycling stuff Subject: weekend happenings To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Peter Bohl Chairman, Northern California- Nevada Board of Appeals .end cc: Ralph Kornahrens, George Mount, Mark Pringle, Peter Stevens, Robert Enright

PDheader:1986-03-03 14:29:00-08:00 e7a4123c95c13b9273f080dbafb2810c ∂03-Mar-86 1429 LES re: weekend happenings To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Mon 3 Mar 86 08:06:19-PST.]

Sounds like the bizschool is living up to its reputation. The officious meeting was pleasant but not overwhelmingly educational. I discussed my helmet labelling proposal and Leibold supported it. In fact, he proposed taking the issue to the Technical Commission via a telephone meeting with the goal of indefinitely postponing enforcement of the labelling rule. This is quite different from the impression of his position that I got earlier from you and others. By the way, Velo-news called this morning to say that they plan to print my note. In the bidding for races, I agreed to do just two -- Capitola and Mountain View. In the course of discussions, Bob Snyder somehow reached the conclusion that I was trying to screw you out of races, which pissed me off a lot. In fact, I find it increasingly hard to communicate with him. Given that Joan seems firm on dropping out of officiating, I think that I will further curtail my participation. The aroma of the UCI Commissaires' Course selection continues to permeate. I still would be interested to know who besides the selectees applied. Incidentally, having the Executive Committee jump on Phil should be regarded as the norm, given that most of them are allied with Ernie and that Voxland's only "ally" (DeGarmo) always votes with the majority, however misguided they may be. It is all a rather slimey business. The remarkable thing is that the Federation runs as well as it does, given the rancid political structure. Good luck on bashing midterms!

PDheader:1986-03-04 11:00:00-08:00 c8bd2db7925ad83ffcda3932849c576c ∂04-Mar-86 1100 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA RETURN NOTE Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 86 11:00:45 PST Date: Tue 4 Mar 86 11:00:48-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: RETURN NOTE To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

WELL THIS WILL BE QUICK BECAUSE I HAVE ANOTHER WONDERFUL INTERVIEW IN A FEW MINUTES. I AM RATHER SHOCKED THAT BOB SNYDER WOULD MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT. I HAD TOLD HIM PRIOR TO THE MEETING THAT I ONLY WANTED TO DO CHIEF TWO MORE RACES THIS YEAR: DISTRICT TRACKS AND NEVADA CITY--THE FORMER FOR GAINING MORE TRACK EXPERIENCE AND THE LATTER TO HAVE ONE MORE CRACK AT GETTING THE SITUATION THERE CORRECTED. I HOPE BOB HAD COMMUNICATED TO YOU HIS APPRECIATION FOR FILLING IN AT A NUMBER OF RACES LAST YEAR AND AT THE LEMOND SERIES RACE A FEW WEEKENDS AGO. IN TERMS OF PHIL, I THINK HE HAS BIT A BIG HOLE IN HIS CAUSE WITH THIS COMM- ISSAIRE THING. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL HE HAS HAD ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT THE SELECTION COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE NEEDED IN ADVANCE AND DID NOT PASS THIS INFORMATION ON. BUT THIS IS THE PAST. MY MAIN CONCERN NOW IS THE FUTURE SELECTION IF THERE ARE TO BE ANY AT ALL. WELL THANKS AGAIN LES AND I'LL TRY TO DROP ON BY SOMETIME LATER THIS WEEK. I STILL HAVE TO CALL THE OFFICE ON CONFIRMING THE COLLEGIATE SITUATION. PS. MIKE COLLINS OF THE SU CYCLING TEAM WAS LOOKING FOR A CHIEF REFEREE FOR THE STANFORD CRITERIUM. I TOLD HIM TO GIVE YOU A RING ABOUT IT TO SEE IF YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED. ------- .BEGIN "signed" nofill; group;narrow 50; .SKIP; Sincerely, .skip 3 Les Earnest .end "signed"; .<< Feb '79 amendments >> .device xgp .require "leg.pub" source_file; .area text lines 1 to height; .next page .cb Amendments to USCF Rules .skip The following rule changes were adopted by the Board of Directors at a meeting on February 3-4, 1979, in Colorado Springs. Item 2 takes effect January 1, 1980; the others take effect 30 days from the date of this notice. .skip; Note that since Rule 1.3.4 was not amended, riders may not wear sponsored jerseys in international events, such as the Red Zinger. .begin nofill narrow 50; Nancy Neiman Secretary, USCF .end .s Racing Numbers On page 22 of the 1979 rulebook, in Rule 1.3.7 replace the second sentence with the following: .begin indent 11,11; select 5; The number shall be attached securely at least at the four corners and no accessory may cover it. The figures shall be black and 14 cm. high on a light colored background 20 cm. high. Numbers shall be constructed from materials sufficiently durable to last the race without tearing or disintegrating, even in adverse weather. .break continue In national championships and international races, two numbers shall be worn on the hips as far apart as possible. The use of numbered plates at the front of the frame or shoulder numbers is recommended and is compulsory for national championship road races. The figures (numbers and plates) shall not be handwritten, but printed in block letters using waterproof inks. .end .s Midget and Intermediate Tires To Rule 2.1.4 on page 23, add the following phrase at the end: ", except that sewup (i.e. tubular) tires may not be used in Midget or Intermediate races." .s Midget Wheel Size In Rule 2.1.6.1 on page 23 and in Rule 3.1.5.1 on page 30, change to read "24 inch wheels or smaller". .s Sponsor's Inscription on National Jerseys On page 18, to Bylaw IX, Section 6, add the following at the end: .begin select 5; . . . except that members of sponsored clubs may afix a patch with their sponsor's inscription when competing in domestic races. The dimensions of the patch can be no larger than 4 cm. by 16 cm. if rectangular, 8 cm. by 8 cm. if square, or 9 cm. in diameter if round. .end

PDheader:1986-03-07 00:24:00-08:00 8b57bedd5faed94ce39e5f6c9dfd582f ∂07-Mar-86 0024 mayer@su-amadeus.ARPA BIKE-AID '86 TO PROMOTE WORLD DEVELOPMENT: GET INVOLVED!! Received: from SU-NAVAJO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 86 00:24:07 PST Received: from su-shasta.arpa by su-navajo.arpa with Sendmail; Thu, 6 Mar 86 21:27:03 pst Received: from su-amadeus.arpa by su-shasta.arpa with TCP; Thu, 6 Mar 86 21:29:07 pst Received: by su-amadeus.arpa with TCP; Thu, 6 Mar 86 21:29:02 pst Date: 6 Mar 1986 2128-PST (Thursday) From: Niels Mayer <mayer@su-amadeus.ARPA> To: mayer@su-amadeus.ARPA Cc: bboard@lotsa, su-bboards@shasta Subject: BIKE-AID '86 TO PROMOTE WORLD DEVELOPMENT: GET INVOLVED!!

BIKE-AID '86 TO PROMOTE WORLD DEVELOPMENT ========================================= The Overseas Development Network, (ODN) a national student group involved in international development issues, is currently organizing a cross-country bicycle trip this summer to increase awareness of world poverty and raise money for self-help projects overseas and in the United-States. The organizers hope to involve over 10,000 bicyclists in the ride, raising 1 million dollars for self-help projects in Africa, Asia, Latin-America, and Appalachia, and for fellowships for students from these areas. Called Bike-Aid '86, the cross country trek will begin on June 16 as groups depart from four West coast cities -- Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles / San Diego -- and from Houston and Tampa on July 12. Participants can ride for the entire 3,300 miles or for a shorter segment (eg. a portion of the country, or even a day-ride). All the groups will cross the country, meet with people in local communities along the way, give informal presentations on development, and collect pledges as they go. The groups will meet in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 5, and finish at the United Nations in New York on Aug. 11 with a closing ceremony hosted by James Grant, director of UNICEF. Patrons for Bike-Aid '86 include Sentators Bill Bradley and Edward Kennedy, Robert Rodale, publisher of ←Bicycling← and ←Runner's←World← magazines; Donald Kennedy, president of Stanford University; Rep. Micky Leland, chairman of the House Select Committee on Hunger; Stanford Alumnus Eric Heiden (bike-racer and five time Olympic gold-medalist in speed-skating); Greg Lemond and Rebecca Twigg, America's premier bike racers; and Grant. Congressman Leland notes that "Bike-Aid will increase public attention and support for the plight of those who suffer from hunger throughout the world... many lives have been saved. Now the task is to give the survivors the opportunity to live productively." According to John Shattuck, vice president of Harvard, "The Overseas Development Network is an extraordinary student organization... in an era when student activism is hard to find, ODN is inspiring in its seriousness, effectiveness, and sophistication." ODN is a national consortium of over 40 campus chapters founded in 1983 by Nazir and Kamal Ahmad, two brothers from Bangladesh who saw the potential of national student organization committed to constructive approaches toward ending world poverty. Nazir is a graduate student in development economics at Stanford University; he is currently writing an action-information handbook on hunger to be published by Harper & Row. Kamal is a junior at Harvard, is traveling in Africa and Asia looking for volunteer opportunities for American students. Some 100 volunteers across the country are helping to carry out Bike-Aid '86. Shaun Skelton, a graduate student at Stanford, is national coordinator for the venture. He is an experienced bicyclist and founder of the Stanford Volunteer network, a community service center. For more information, write or call: [please don't reply to me for info!!] Shaun Skelton Bike-Aid '86 P.O. Box 2306 Stanford, CA 94305. (415)497-8559 (415)725-2869. Niels Mayer Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University uucp: {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!mayer arpa: mayer@su-amadeus.arpa cc: net.bicycle, net.college, bboard@lotsa, su-bboards@shasta.

PDheader:1986-03-11 14:30:00-08:00 3a3ada927e657900e1a4b2abecfadf14 ∂11-Mar-86 1430 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA thanx for response Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86 14:30:28 PST Date: Tue 11 Mar 86 14:30:26-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: thanx for response To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Will try to drop by later perhaps 4:30 or so. Have talked to Phil, Ernie, Rich Degarmo on this commissaire business. Also want to discuss Nevada City with you. See you. -------

PDheader:1986-03-11 17:00:00-08:00 06057fa47f2a559be1e528fc314d45f5 ∂11-Mar-86 1700 LES re: thanx for response To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Tue 11 Mar 86 14:30:26-PST.]

Fine. I'm here. Also, Phil called me last night. Incidentally, if you wish to discover whether I am logged in, type the following command on your machine: finger les@sail In similar manner, I can see whether you are logged in. Finger is a program that I invented 15 years ago that seems to have propagated onto a lot of machines.

PDheader:1986-03-13 20:59:00-08:00 bf3f3d3a9465343af5c0752969418e0d ∂13-Mar-86 2059 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA phone number Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 86 20:59:09 PST Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 20:59:04-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: phone number To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

I forgot to ask you about your new telephone number, (Ipresume you also got a new number with the change of office. I talked to Beth the other night. She says that the reason why Joan was invited to the Coors Mens race only was from Jackie Simes' objections. He thinks that you'll be spying on him. Spying for who???? I have more paper work from the office, about six or seven documents. I'll bring them by after finals. See you. -------

PDheader:1986-03-14 07:54:00-08:00 2d3e3d24a1d9d0c4eb7d43fd36cb579d ∂14-Mar-86 0754 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA LEGISLATION Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 86 07:54:40 PST Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 07:54:39-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: LEGISLATION To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

Forgot also to tell you that the Legislation Committee is meeting on April 19 and 20. The full board will be meeting on May 9 and 10. Concerning legislation, it has been brought to bear by our dear friend Beth that the 1986 rule book is missing or inaccurately states the passed legislation that the board mulled over in the last two meetings. I have not had a chance to review and compare the new book and the packet of passed legislation. I am wondering if you would be interested in being solicited for the April meeting as a special consultant considering the state of the rulebook and the committee. Leibold won't be able to attend this meeting and I can't see that your travel and lodging would be any additional expense to the Federation. If you think this possible, I will talk to Phil, Beth, and Rich in that order on the possibility. (I get the impression that Rich is a bit paranoid whether or not you will be on the board again) -------

PDheader:1986-03-14 13:15:00-08:00 be3178228a2e5c7a9973a04bcc7aa856 ∂14-Mar-86 1315 LES re: LEGISLATION To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Fri 14 Mar 86 07:54:39-PST.]

I have not checked the passed legislation against the Rulebook, but I assumed that this was done by the Legislation Committee. I always distributed Rulebook drafts to the Committee for review and correction. If this wasn't done this year then someone deserves a kick in the butt. Incidentally, in leafing through the Rulebook I saw a number of minor blunders and other problems that I was thinking of writing up, though there is little point in doing it before next years' editing starts. I have learned that if you provide guidance too early it gets lost by the time it should be used. I am puzzled by the plan to hold a separate Legislation Committee meeting in April. The only legislation that should be considered at this time of year is emergency patch-ups. If there are any, I should think that they could be handled by mail and phone. With respect to the idea of my participating, that appears to be impractical. I had asked Phil to appoint me to the committee last year but he declined, citing the fact that Legislation is a standing committee and that the USCF Constitution says in Article V, Section 9, that "The Board of Directors may designate from among its members an executive committee or other standing committees, each consisting of three or more directors." Admittedly it would be legal to have a "consultant", but it would also be an awkwardly powerless position for a perpetual advocate such as me. Besides that, a long-standing Stanford social event called the Spring Orgy is scheduled for April 19. This will be the 20th annual Orgy (actually a kind of picnic) that I have organized.

PDheader:1986-03-17 08:14:00-08:00 29ddee9cf5d6d76445c3141dd7f3199a ∂17-Mar-86 0814 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA more stuff Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86 08:13:57 PST Date: Mon 17 Mar 86 08:12:20-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: more stuff To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Just received more correspondence from Ernie. He has sent out to the TC the list of NC's applying to the commissaire course. Only 18 applied. From reviewing the list I can see why they chose the people they did. Also in this correspondence was a note to the office about the Spenco 500 suspensions. They were discussed at the Dec meeting and we decided to issue 30 day suspensions. However, at this time the office had not sent out the suspensions. The topic of discussion is whether to send them out now. My first gut feeling is that if we do we will have several if not too many appeals on the grounds that these were not issued in a timely manner. On the other hand it would give the appropriate scare to those people who did ride the event seeing how this suspension would take place during April. I think this place, GSB, is finally getting to me. I was working on informing the Tassajara officials crew last night. I seem to have recalled one of the officials was not able to work the event, but I couldn't remember where I got that information from. I think I must have dreamt it. This morning I show up for my cost accounting final only to find that I am over an hour early. Speaking of cost accounting, I was studying cost allocation schemes this morning and the insurance situation came to mind. Prouty's last mailing suggested a $40 license next year. I don't disagree with this except I haven't seen any supporting evidence to back up this figure. Perhaps the GSB program is indeed making a spreadsheet junkie out of me, but I think Dave or the Budget committee should provide income projections and sensitivity analyses on items such as raising license fees, race permit fees, and other surcharges before they go ahead and charge money. I really am dissappointed in Alex Baum as treasurer. Dave complained that the old treasurer was never available. Alex isn't much better; he doesn't stay around at board meetings to be accountable for the going ons of the budget. I do believe the budget committee should be more responsible in providing the general board with the financial going ons of the corporation. On this line I think I'm going to be a GSB MBA this May meeting and tote out a HP 110 portable with Lotus set-up with the 1986 projected budget installed. I am beginning to wonder if that committee or Dave have done such income analysis. Finally, I was talking with Bob Snyder last weekend. I was under the impression from talking with him just a week prior that he was assigning Nevada City to me. In a week's time he has made a turn around and is now thinking of bringing up Bob Ross from LA. My only concern on this matter is that Nevada City is the kind of race that one needs really to see first before being thrusted in the middle of the mess. I would hate to be dragged into that kind of race without prior knowledge of the event. Oh well, we'll see what happens. Well I do need to prepare for cost accounting. It's one of two courses that I still have a possibility of failing right now. I'm hoping that the final is straight forward. Otherwise.... Anyways, I drop by at the end of this week with all sorts of interesting paperwork. See you. -------

PDheader:1986-03-31 14:54:00-08:00 7159d4ca9842828353117fb72863a8f1 ∂31-Mar-86 1454 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA visit Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Mar 86 14:53:40 PST Date: Mon 31 Mar 86 14:50:24-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: visit To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Been a busy morning between paying money to the university at different locations and then going to the DMV to take of the car I bought before I came here and now getting my paperwork and books. I was on the phone about an hour ago with the office and with Phil. I tried to make reservations for my flight out to the legislation meeting. Pam Endicott said "what meeting?" Apparently, Richard Weiss hasn't called her back about making arrangements for the April 19-20 weekend. Great. Talked to Phil about several items. I told him I was concerned about the validity of my attending the course seeing how Jekiel hasn't approved my attendance. He apparently approved a sixth candidate just last week meaning a sixth slot open. I am worried that I'm going to fly out there to find I can't take the test. We also discussed the Ultra-marathon crowd. The task of formulating what to do about these events has been put into my lap. Marino wants us to grant a stay on suspensions for USCF riders who compete in his JMO events. He has his first one this April 26th. I am thinking that we should grant this stay for the very first of his JMO's and to negotiate an affiliation with the UMCA organization of his. Well, I asked Phil "who actually draws up such a document?" He replied,"Les". He has very interesting way of putting things. Anyways, I would like to try and drop by during lunch tommorrow. Is this ok by your schedule? I'll try to check back in this computer later today. -------

PDheader:1986-03-31 15:35:00-08:00 cbc389505ba1490b5d2b119151618e41 ∂31-Mar-86 1535 LES re: visit To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Mon 31 Mar 86 14:50:24-PST.]

Yes, I expect to be around tomorrow, though I usually go to the faculty (free) lunch on Tuesdays. I can hang back to see you if that is the only convenient time. I am also scheduled to attend a 11:00-noon revelation from D.E.C. that I do not regard as crucial and there is a faculty meeting during 2:30pm-3:30. I still think that the USCF should issue race permits to the ultramarathon folks and take control of their officiating. Barring that, another relationship should be negotiated, such as "We won't bother you any more." Given Prouty's preferance for maintaining the status quo (or retrogressing), it will not be possible to take control of the ultramarathoners unless he is bypassed, e.g. by the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors. For some reason, while eating breakfast this morning I received telephone calls in rapid succession from Prouty, Baum, and a lawyer who is defending the USCF against another horrendous lawsuit in Oregon. Politics marches on! Stanford Parking Santa Clara County collects about $400k per year in parking fines at Stanford. Stanford spends about $500k/year for parking enforcement (7 full time tickers, maintenance of signs, etc.) and $330k/year for Marguerite. [Taken from Sept. 1984 press release provided by Heidi Beck of Stanford News Service, as reported in Bug Me, Stanford Daily, April 8, 1986]

PDheader:1986-04-25 21:55:00-08:00 82be1ba380c978fff501357f124337d9 ∂25-Apr-86 2155 wertz@su-glacier.ARPA 1986 Cycling Centuries Calendar Received: from SU-NAVAJO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Apr 86 21:54:51 PST Received: from su-glacier.arpa by su-navajo.arpa with Sendmail; Fri, 25 Apr 86 21:51:33 pst Received: by su-glacier.arpa with Sendmail; Fri, 25 Apr 86 21:51:55 pst Date: Fri, 25 Apr 86 21:51:55 pst From: Eric Wertz <wertz@su-glacier.ARPA> Subject: 1986 Cycling Centuries Calendar To: su-bboards@su-glacier.ARPA

This information is striaght out of the April 1986 issue of California Cyclist. I try to keep it up to date and re-post it every so often. The most recent version of this list will be kept in Glacier:~wertz/etc/Centuries.86 for those of you that have some way of getting to it. enjoy, -eric NOTE: Century entry fees are approximately $5-$15. Please write early for information and send a self-addressed stamped envelope. 4/12 PRIMAVERA CENTURY. 50km, 100km, 100mi, and 200km. Sag support. Fremont Freewheelers: P.O. Box 1089, Fremont 94538. (415)795-0868. 4/12-13 DUNES BY MOONLIGHT MOUNTAIN BIKE CENTURY. From Big Pine to America's tallest sand dune in Eureka Valley, CA and back. Plumline/Kangaroo Baggs. Don Douglass: (805)653-0431. 4/19 TIERRA BELLA CENTURY. 200km, 100mi, 100km and 50km. Almaden Touring Club, P.O. Box 7286, San Jose 95150. 4/19 SECOND EVER GOLD RUSH CENTURY. 100mi and 100km. Merced Cycling Club, P.O Box 2243, Merced 95344. 4/20 WILDFLOWER CENTURY. 100mi and 60mi. Registration and start 6-9 am., C.A.R.D. Center, 545 Vallombrosa (at Mangrove), Chico. Chico Velo Cycling Club, Box 2285, Chico 95927. 4/26-27 GO FOR THE GOLD TWO-DAY CENTURY. 110 hilly miles in 2 days, moderate pace along Sacramento riverfront and through Sierra foothills. Stay at Auburn Hotel. Advance registration required. Golden Gate Cyclists, care of Larry Bensky, P.O. Box 40247, San Francisco 94140. 4/27 SIERRA CENTURY XII. 50 km, 100km and 100mi. Sag support and some meals included. Pre-registration ends April 13. 6 a.m. start, Sierra College, Rocklin. Sacramento Wheelmen, Sierra XII Registration, 1041 33rd Street, Sacramento 95816. 5/4 ISHI 160 CENTURY. For registration and information: Chico Velo Cycling Club, Box 2285, Chico 95927. 5/10 NINTH ANNUAL GOOD EARTH CLASSIC. 100km, over Highway 9. Branham High School, 1570 Branham Lane, San Jose 95118. 5/10 ST. JAMES CENTURY. 30mi, 60mi, 100mi. Davis Bike Club. For registration and info: Adele Hipps c/o St. James School, 1215 "B" Street, Davis 95616. (916)753-4569 or 756-3946. 5/11 GRIZZLY PEAK CENTURY. 100mi, 200km, 50km, 50mi. Hard shell helmets required. Participation limited to 750. Start 7-9 am., Island Picnic Area, Tilden Regional Park, east of Berkeley. Grizzly Peak Cyclists, c/o Bill Reenstra, 965 Euclid, Berkeley 94708. 5/17-18 17TH ANNUAL DAVIS DOUBLE CENTURY. 200 miles in 24 hours. Full sag support and meals offered. Registration closes April 30. Limit 1500 participants. Registration and information: Randall Braun c/o Davis Bike Club, 610 Third Street,. Davis 95616. (916)758-3415. 5/23-26 GREAT WESTERN BICYCLE RALLY. Two centuries on May 25. Many other rides, events and races in Paso Robles. Pre-registration encouraged: Great Western Bicycle Rally, Inc., Ralph D. Boethling, Chairman, P.O. Box 7000-617, Redondo Beach 90277. 6/1 13TH ANNUAL SEQUOIA CENTURY. 200 km, 100mi, 100km, and 25mi. Western Wheelers, P.O. Box 518, Palo Alto 94302. 6/8 CENTURY OF THE VALLEYS. 100 miles, start and finish in Greenfield. Velo Promo: (408)425-8688. 6/14 BAY AREA TRIPLE CENTURY. Pre-registration only. 300 mostly flat miles starting and ending in Fremont. Must finish in 24 hours. Grizzly Peak Cyclists c/o Gene Vilain, 3935 Canon Avenue, Oakland 94602. (415)531-1142 6/14 TOUR OF NEVADA CITY CENTURY. Limited to 200 registrants. Sierra Express Bicycle Club, P.O. Box 14, Nevada City 95959. (916)265-2187. 6/22 WAGANUPA CENTURY. 112 steep miles through Lassen National Park. Start at Dale's Station, 11 miles east of Red Bluff on Highway 36. For registration and information: Chico Velo Cycling Club, Box 2285, Chico 95927. (916)891-8156. 6/22 DELTA CENTURY. 100mi, 100km, and 50km. Stockton Bicycle Club, P.O. Box 4702, Stockton 95204. 7/20 TOUR DE GARLIQUE. Gavilan Wheelers, 1425 Mantelli Drive., Gilroy 95020. 7/27 PAJARO VALLEY CENTURY. 100mi, 50mi. and 25mi. Start in Corralitos. Santa Cruz County Cycling Club, 414-1/2 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, 95062. (408)425-8688. 8/18 FOXY FALL CENTURY. Davis Bike Club. 610 Third Street, Davis 95616. (916)758-3415.

PDheader:1986-04-28 10:13:00-07:00 f286d4b829e23e88f37735626e1a05bc ∂28-Apr-86 1013 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Apr 86 10:13:23 PDT Date: Mon 28 Apr 86 09:49:02-PDT From: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA

Talked to Andy briefly. Do you have the accident report forms. I have copies if you do not. Time Tribune called this morning as a follow up. Referred them to the office. They were asking about the preparedness of the Federation for this occurrence. Should be another article this evening. Will check back for reply at noon.

PDheader:1986-04-28 11:23:00-07:00 0309328715a30fd7640c4d66c499ec8b ∂28-Apr-86 1123 LES Accident To: 87.nee@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA

I tried to reach Andy a few minutes ago but he was talking to someone. I was trying to locate an accident report form in my file this morning but couldn't find one. If you can put your hand on one that would be convenient, though not essential -- I can put the information in a letter. Eric Peterson is sending me a copy of the Senior 3 registration list, which I will forward to the Federation. The rider who hit the woman (David Lockwood) called last night to find out what had happened to her; I told him. He wanted to know what he should do, like go to her funeral. I said that he should be cautious about doing something like that because the reaction of members of her family might be unpredictable. I also told him that it is certainly reasonable to express sorrow over what happened but he should avoid expressing guilt or accepting responsibility.

PDheader:1986-05-06 10:36:00-07:00 582db5245275810d380904582128a04f ∂06-May-86 1036 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA Nevada City Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 May 86 10:33:08 PDT Date: Tue 6 May 86 10:33:40-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: Nevada City To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Called Lee and Rick Bulis concerning Bill Miller. Lee summarized him as "Weasel". Never heard her use anything derrogatory about anyone before. Rick used stronger words. His recommendation was that the best strategy for a successful race would be to first remove him. Great. Talked to Andy in the office about options concerning the field limit. I am still weighing the arguements about the subject. Prouty sent a very large "confidential" document concerning the board's up coming review of his contract. He states that this upcoming meeting the topic will be discussed. That's news to me. Something's fishy going on here. I'll try to drop by and let you get a copy of this. He is paranoid. -------

PDheader:1986-05-08 02:19:00-07:00 208b1a0725e30f387eef4acdb166afb4 ∂08-May-86 0219 LES Agenda To: 87.nee@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA

Having read through the Prouty survey and defense, I am convinced more than ever that it is a bad idea to take the issue up now. If the conclusion is that he should be replaced, you will still have him on the payroll till the end of the current contract (around March 1, 1987 as I recall). This is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. One topic that IS worth discussing is the invitation from Glenn Odell for the USCF to take control of NORBA. The questions worth asking are: 1. Who decided to decline the offer without even attempting to negotiate? 2. What was the basis of the decision? 3. Why was the content of the offer not communicated to the Board? I am not asserting that the decision was incorrect, though I suspect that it was. The main issue appears to be procedural -- it seems to have been treated as something that Dave could decide for himself when in fact it was an important organizational question that should have been discussed and scrutinized rather broadly. Have fun! Les

PDheader:1986-05-08 10:15:00-07:00 40f08a7a4860b5e3f0573c66869f0ff8 ∂08-May-86 1015 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA Cyclops Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 May 86 10:00:11 PDT Date: Thu 8 May 86 10:00:43-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: Cyclops To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Marketing Myopia is a favorite reference around here. Is that another connotation for Cyclops? What pray tell are you doing filing messages at 2 AM???? I am sending a plea to the larger NorCal clubs to vote not on a popularity contest and consider the need for professional management on the board. I am short a few copies of your Cyclops V1 N3. Could I obtain about five more copies? Will bring up the NORBA issue. Talked to Phil yesterday to find out who put Prouty's contract on the adgenda. It smells fishy. He accuses Ernie and company. I'm not so sure. I do agree that this is not the time for such discussion. Phil says Dave will walk if we even consider other candidates. I will try to get the item off the adgenda for the weekend. -------

PDheader:1986-05-08 11:00:00-07:00 67c485761e403855aef3ed683fe4fbe5 ∂08-May-86 1100 LES re: Cyclops To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Thu 8 May 86 10:00:43-PDT.]

1. "Cyclops USA" is mainly a play on "Cycling USA." Also, I happen to be a cyclops of sorts -- my contact lenses are set up so that at any given distance I can focus clearly with just one eye. My left eye sees distant things (including peering through my small cycling mirror) and my right eye covers from computer terminal distance on in. It works surprisingly well once you get used to it. This is, of course, an adaptation to the loss of lens accomodation brought about by aging. 2. I often stay up till 2am. Last night till 5am -- drank coffee too late. 3. Yes, I can provide more copies of Cyclops V1 N3, as you wish. 4. Good luck!

PDheader:1986-05-12 01:52:00-07:00 b00b84ad0580f4fcbb7fd92734cad850 ∂12-May-86 0152 LES Flaming works sometimes To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA

Some of you may recall my January 15 BBoard harangue on bicycle planning that advocated construction of a circumferential bike route around the central campus, better bicycle parking and storage facilities and other reforms. I subsequently added some ideas gleaned from the BBoard discussion, cast it in the form of a memo and passed it up the administrative chain. After hearing no response for a couple of months, I then contacted staff members in the Planning Office and sent them a copy directly. Happily, I recently received an invitation to meet with them to review the recommendations. I WOULD LIKE THE NCCA TO SUBSIDIZE (50%) THE OFFICIALS FEES FOR AN UPCOMING CAT 3 AND 4 OFFICIALS CLINIC TO BE HELD MAY 26TH. When we met last Friday I was pleased to learn that they are taking the recommendations seriously; in fact we reviewed a map study of the possible bike route. We also reviewed some of the existing campus cycling safety problems that I had cited and they seemed inclined to follow my recommended fixes. During the course of these discussions I learned that they plan to redevelop the courtyard between Jacks Hall and the Inner Quad soon and will give particular attention to bicycle parking problems. While I am encouraged by the response of the Planning Office, I recognize that the needed work must be approved at several levels before construction can proceed and that full implementation of the scheme I proposed will require changes in law enforcement that must be approved by the President's Office. Nevertheless, things seem to be moving in the right direction for now. The Planning Office folks seem genuinely pleased to have input from a cycling advocate and promise to invite comments on further planning activities. I mentioned the BBoards as a possible quick-turnaround source of opinions on any given issue (!). ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE NCCA SUBSIDIZE (100%) THE MATERIAL COSTS OF THE COURSE (PHOTOCOPYING). Thanks again to those who offered support and encouragement in response to my earlier message. Flaming sometimes helps to get things going! WILL YOU BE AROUND TONIGHT AROUND 5:30 OR SO? I JUST HAD A 6PM MEETING CANCELLED. ------- Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-05-12 14:06:00-07:00 cb2bce83f5f979fbf31b95fb93e1ab3f ∂12-May-86 1406 JOHNMARK@su-sushi.arpa Re: Flaming works sometimes Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 May 86 14:06:32 PDT Date: Mon 12 May 86 14:05:53-PDT From: John Mark Agosta <JOHNMARK@su-sushi.arpa> Subject: Re: Flaming works sometimes To: LES@su-ai.arpa In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Mon 12 May 86 01:52:00-PDT Message-ID: <12206179376.49.JOHNMARK@su-sushi.arpa>

Les - While your "little list" might still be fluid - have you anything in it about sweeping bike paths - such as the one that goes from churchill and el camino to the stadium? May be you want to post your list for a round of last minute additions and details. -johnmark -------

PDheader:1986-05-12 15:05:00-07:00 78116af7f62649c9c62b9b0ceb484040 ∂12-May-86 1505 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA MEETIMG Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 May 86 15:05:20 PDT Date: Mon 12 May 86 15:05:54-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: MEETIMG To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

GOT A MEETING AT 8PM TONIGHT. SO CAN'T GO TO THE NCCA MEETING. COULD YOU BRING UP A FEW REQUESTS FOR ME?

PDheader:1986-05-13 17:13:00-07:00 58784668c38a2fe9aff169a4de481e37 ∂13-May-86 1713 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA NCCA Meeting Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 May 86 17:13:44 PDT Date: Tue 13 May 86 17:14:13-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: NCCA Meeting To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

What was the response to the funding request? What other great things happened at the meeting? Talked to Scott Hildula from Times Tribune and what other papers and he is waiting for the toxicology report to be released on Ms Colclough. If positive, he is ready to print such article. I told him it was personal hope that no one be placed in an embarassing situation because of this unfortunate occurence. -------

PDheader:1986-05-13 18:01:00-07:00 959760e56b00fa6c0359fa1c6e4316d7 ∂13-May-86 1801 LES re: NCCA Meeting To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Tue 13 May 86 17:14:13-PDT.]

On the copying subsidy, they voted "Yes" provided that you try to get it out of the Federation as a first choice. Lee M. said she thought the Feds have funds available. On the licensing subsidy, there was a consensus in favor of trying to get the clubs to underwrite most or all of that expense. I note that the voting was rather lethargic -- nearly all decisions were made by a vote of 1 to 0, with different people being the 1. I, of course, had no vote. Yes, I too talked to Hildula (assuming that he is the one writing it up for California Bicyclist). Tried to be reasonably positive about the incident. Also talked to Chuck Gibson yesterday, who still doesn't know when the police report will appear. This morning I heard from a writer from Bicycling, looking for information on the Prouty incident. Seems he wasn't getting much out of Board members. I told him what I thought and blamed it on Ernie's crew. He wanted to know who he could get more information but I allowed as how I didn't know. (Want to become a "Deep Throat"?) Incidentally, even in cases where the Board decides to keep information "secret," you should let your conscience be your guide on what you talk about. The key thing to keep in mind is the good of the Federation, not the ass-covering machinations of the petty politicians. If they don't like what you say, they can froth and foam but there is not much they can do about it. In particular, they can't remove you from office (since I got that changed in 1980).

PDheader:1986-05-14 00:38:00-07:00 a55655194d2b751178a9087ef9304a75 ∂14-May-86 0038 LES Bicycle Planning Agenda To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA

I have been asked to restate my agenda for campus bicycle planning. Here it is from my earlier note on "Crossing the Near West Campus," which appeared here January 15. 1. In planning for the Near West Campus, all important transportation modes (currently cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, wheelchairs and walking) should be taken into account and planners should do their best to resolve conflicts and optimize the use of each mode. 2. Specific plans should be made for a circumferential bicycle route around the central campus, including the Near West Campus. 3. Rules against pedestrians walking in bike routes should be made, advertised and enforced, as should rules against reckless cycling in walkways. 4. Upright bike racks, typically made of metal, should be placed wherever bicycle parking facilities are needed. Existing concrete bike slots should be collected and sold to any fool who is willing to buy them. Failing that, these useless devices should be used for landfill. 5. Fully-enclosed bicycle lockers should be made available on campus for rental to those who need them. 6. Shower facilities should be provided in each new large building and in every cluster of smaller buildings, for use by commuting cyclists and joggers. I have just received an additional suggestion that certain existing bike routes be swept more frequently. I will pass that along.

PDheader:1986-05-14 02:29:00-07:00 f60473f4fbb841292e73fb0dff3e4639 ∂14-May-86 0229 JIML@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 02:29:52 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 02:28:34-PDT From: Jim Lewinson <Jiml@SU-CSLI.ARPA> Subject: Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 14 May 86 00:38:00-PDT

The Cement Bike blocks are WONDERFUL.... for use in holding down Lighting Trees for Dorm Theatrical Shows.... :-) Jim -------

PDheader:1986-05-14 08:46:00-07:00 bff19e818a7422ccf5a218048b0f67de ∂14-May-86 0846 ANJA@SU-SIERRA.ARPA Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 08:46:10 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 08:48:03-PDT From: Angela Baldo <Anja@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 14 May 86 00:38:00-PDT Message-ID: <12206645802.15.ANJA@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>

If you can, please add to #4 that we would appreciate, wherever possible, bike racks like those in front of Green Library and the new CIS building, which make it easier to lock both wheels and frame. Thanks. anja -------

PDheader:1986-05-14 08:52:00-07:00 cd7fb7b36a5be7fc344e5f9e154674a6 ∂14-May-86 0852 MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 08:52:49 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 08:50:09-PDT From: Katie MacMillen <MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Re: Bicycle Planning Agenda To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 14 May 86 00:38:00-PDT Message-ID: <12206646186.33.MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

les, what is the "near west campus"? near to what? how near? without knowing, it translates to me to be the area between the quad and jordan quad. commenting on item three of your suggestions: i think it only fair if pedestrians are going to be expected to stay out of bike lanes entirely that bicyclists should be expected to stay out of walkways entirely. i would like to see heavily travelled pedestrian routes separated from heavily travelled bike routes, and the rest of any area be designated free for any and all. the only thing which started me thinking about this bit was your use of the word "recklessly", which wasn't parallel construction and therefore made the sentence seem a bit in favor of bicyclists. (please recognize that i am both a cyclist and a pedestrian.) your ideas for showers are A+superfantasticprimogreatkeen. if not for an entire shower, i would like a place to take a quick sponge bath after biking in. thank you! now what are we going to do about mopeds?? -katie -------

PDheader:1986-05-14 08:58:00-07:00 0c60e0a776441aa75c807e7d6bbf473b ∂14-May-86 0858 HOLSTEGE@su-sushi.arpa Bike planning Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 08:58:07 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 08:57:29-PDT From: Mary Holstege <HOLSTEGE@su-sushi.arpa> Subject: Bike planning To: les@su-ai.arpa Message-ID: <12206647522.9.HOLSTEGE@su-sushi.arpa>

I agree with you remarks about bike planning with one major exception: Your plan is heavily biased against pedestrians -- you ban pedestrians from bikeways, where they endanger primarily themselves, but allow cyclists in walkways where they endanger every pedestrian. My view: bikes should be BANNED from walkways; in particular, no one should be permitted to ride bikes in the archways of the inner quad or in similar areas around other buildings. In general for every major route about campus there should be a pedestrian-only sidewalk or walkway, and cyclists who violate it should be ticketed. Ideally the separation would be marked by some sort of raised border; perhaps pedestrian ways could be on grass, since cyclists avoid these where they can. As someone who gets around primarily by walking (i.e. for any distance less than 4-5 miles) I KNOW very well how capable the average cyclist is of being "cautious" of pedestrians. I have narrowly avoided being run down from behind or from around a corner far too many times to trust my health to the judgement of cyclists. In any case, there is no good reason why cyclists need to ride around the arches of the inner quad, etc. A 50 foot walk is trivial. In an ideal world, cyclists would be banned from the inner quad entirely. I don't think this is a real problem: good alternative routes exist on either side of the quad and bicycle streams through the inner quad are extremely hazardous to pedestrians. I also believe that while having YIELD signs (vs. STOP signs) at major pedestrian/bike intersections is OK at normal times, at class change times this leaves pedestrians risking life and limb or being late for class. Since cyclists are faster, any delay they suffer is relatively minor, so pedestrians should be given the right of way. Hope you pass this view on to the relevant people: I look forward to the day where I am safer walking around campus than driving down 101. However if some mysterious circumstance (an orgy, for example) arise and I'm not there when you are, then don't trash your evening waiting. -- Mary ------- (I'm going to LAX to avoid hassling through DEN, where if it might snow, it will, that means a shuttle ride to Long Beach, but oh well.)

PDheader:1986-05-14 10:41:00-07:00 b8ee08e317a55b1af6c412696c163a96 ∂14-May-86 1041 SIEGMAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA Electronic Bike Locks? Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 10:40:17 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 10:42:00-PDT From: Tony Siegman <SIEGMAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Electronic Bike Locks? To: les@SU-AI.ARPA Message-ID: <12206666547.42.SIEGMAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>

I've long envisioned an electronic bike lock which includes, in addition to the usual cable, a ribbon cable of the same length which comes out of, and plugs back into, a small box (maybe mechanically integrated with the mechanical cable lock mechanism). On the box are a set of thumbwheel switches, and inside are some electronic guts generally similar to a garage door opener controller. If the cable is unplugged without first setting the right combination into the thumbwheels, either (a) a shrill battery- powered alarm goes off inside the box, or maybe (b) an even shriller alarm up on the wall of the bike parking area goes off (everyone in CSD who bikes to work of course has their box set to the code which sets off that alarm), or perhaps (c) a silent alarm goes off inside the building, and you run out and tackle the bastard. [In general, I fail to see why modern IC capabilities don't get more use by police in protecting property, and espcially in ←catching← more thieves. (Legal quibbles over entrapment be damned!)] -------

PDheader:1986-05-14 11:49:00-07:00 9559d6d932bb1f9f285973098dbb2f34 ∂14-May-86 1149 bhayes@su-glacier.arpa bikes and the west Received: from SU-GLACIER.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 11:48:48 PDT Received: by su-glacier.arpa with Sendmail; Wed, 14 May 86 11:50:28 pdt Date: 14 May 1986 1150-PDT (Wednesday) From: Barry Hayes <bhayes@su-glacier.arpa> To: les@sail Cc: Subject: bikes and the west

Art ------ I'm glad that you're doing something about a problem I've been sitting on my duff about for years. I support everything you say in your proposal [two things I dislike most are people walking in the bike lanes and people biking just beside them.] In addition, please get them to pay attention to lighting bike-paths [I have in mind the path off of Panama, crosses Campus, forks, and runs into some road I don't know the name of [oops]. I have been biking home and had someone waiting at the Campus crossing ask me to escort her across that section. I think the planners need to be reminded that not everyone lives on campus.] By the way, if at all possible, I think some sort of campus bike registration/permit should be cooked up. Those who ride bikes with no lights full speed through busy crossings and such should be zapped. What is the legal standing of such things? do you know... -Barry

PDheader:1986-05-14 12:23:00-07:00 04b6429479227b649d94dee9b913c319 ∂14-May-86 1223 LES re: Bicycle Planning Agenda To: MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 14 May 86 08:50:09-PDT.]

Exactly right -- the Near West Campus will be between the Main Quad and Jordan. The first phase of demolition and construction will begin within five years. I believe that pedestrians and cyclists can share the same routes through the central campus provided that they behave well. The specific rule that I proposed is that "No cyclist moving faster than 5 MPH shall ride closer to a pedestrian than one arms-length." If this procedure were followed (with suitable enforcement) there should be no problems in joint use of walkways. If we don't do that, then it will be necessary to put bike routes and controlled intersections everywhere, which I think is impractical. As for mopeds, I believe that they should be permitted to use the circumferential bike route under power but should be permitted to enter the central campus only under pedal power. Glad you brought that up -- I had thought about it but forgot to write it down.

PDheader:1986-05-14 12:42:00-07:00 4c3befa00ed2a1d88500077881cdede9 ∂14-May-86 1242 LES re: Bike planning To: HOLSTEGE@SU-SUSHI.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 14 May 86 08:57:29-PDT.]

I agree with your view that there is a lot of unsafe interaction between cyclists and pedestrians here currently but do not agree that the only solution is to ban cyclists from the central campus. Pedestrians and cyclists can share the same routes through this area provided that they behave appropriately. I do not propose to rely on the good judgement of the cyclists but on law enforcement. The specific rule that I proposed is that "No cyclist moving faster than 5 MPH shall ride closer to a pedestrian than one arms-length." If this procedure were followed (with suitable enforcement) there should be no problems in joint use of walkways. If we don't do that, then it will be necessary to put bike routes and controlled intersections everywhere, which I think is impractical. The purpose of the circumferential bike route will be to draw cyclists who have a substantial distance to travel away from the main pedestrian routes. It would be pointless to ask them to dismount whenever they enter the central campus. It IS reasonable to require that they respect the pedestrians' right-of-way. Your recollection of why the rule book switched to first class is probably right -- to avoid the staff hassles of double mail and label processing. I thought the change had been made by Jerry, but you could be on target with the Prouty/Cappy licenseing era. Les

PDheader:1986-05-14 13:39:00-07:00 3160f855aac1da10b848fd578e933119 ∂14-May-86 1339 LES re: bikes and the west To: bhayes@SU-GLACIER.ARPA

[In reply to message sent 14 May 1986 1150-PDT.] Good Points. I'll pass them on. I know that it is legal to require that bikes be registered with the county. That will probably provide an adequate handle for dealing with bad guys. We will need mounted police (i.e. bikies) for enforcement, of course.

PDheader:1986-05-14 14:07:00-07:00 e0a37491af8d068537c61216a76c5536 ∂14-May-86 1407 bhayes@su-glacier.arpa re: bikes and the west Received: from SU-GLACIER.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 14:07:40 PDT Received: by su-glacier.arpa with Sendmail; Wed, 14 May 86 14:07:59 pdt Date: 14 May 1986 1407-PDT (Wednesday) From: Barry Hayes <bhayes@su-glacier.arpa> To: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>

PDheader:1986-05-14 14:40:00-07:00 ee7ac5bb52cc9a4966ec9c2a80589a1b ∂14-May-86 1440 MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: Bicycle Planning Agenda Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 May 86 14:39:47 PDT Date: Wed 14 May 86 14:27:33-PDT From: Katie MacMillen <MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: re: Bicycle Planning Agenda To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 14 May 86 12:23:00-PDT Message-ID: <12206707607.45.MACMILK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

do i agree with any of this? i generally agree with all of it! i still feel that having *some* prescribed/proscribed pathways for each would keep the traffic under control, but i'm not for a LOT of those. i think that, practically, people don't like getting hurt and therefore stay a limited distance from other bicyclists and pedestrians - a point which you formalize with the one arm'slength rule, which is kind of a minimum distance tolerated. i think the heart of the problem comes from some bicyclists going fast, and others going crazily, and some doing both. enforcing the separation i brought up would avoid contact between opposing transportation groups and allow them to do damage only to each other. the key is to ENFORCE the laws. as for mopeds, i think they should obey speed limits for cars when on the road, and should be allowed to use their motors everywhere else as well - at a medium speed on bike paths, and at a minimal speed at the heart of campus. i think right now they are restricted from some areas (like the quad??) which should continue. my objection to the pedaling bit is that it's damn near impossible to pedal most of the mopeds being sold nowadays. they are sold, unlike the old ones, to be the american equivalent of european scooters and don't pedal well. i think if you alone were in charge of The New Bike-Ped-Moped Laws it'd all come out fine. keep up the good work. now, know of any extra tickets to the shows at the greek?!?! -------

PDheader:1986-05-18 23:27:00-07:00 1ea00f7bc9e1656826551ac4be8eff3d ∂18-May-86 2327 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA COORS CLASSIC COURSES Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 May 86 23:27:33 PDT Date: Sun 18 May 86 23:28:04-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: COORS CLASSIC COURSES To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

TOOK LOOK AT COORS COURSES ON SATURDAY. WAS HOT. VERY BAD FOR MENTAL HEALTH. SF COURSE HAS CABLE CAR TRACKS IN THE MIDDLE OF TURN. ALSO IS AN HOUR GLASS COURSE WITH RIDERS COMING HEAD ON IN THE INTERSECTION. SACRAMENTO HAS THIS CRAZY SET-UP THAT DOUBLE BACKS UPON ITSELF. TYPICAL AISNER SET UP. I WILL REMIND HIM AND DON HOBBS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR WITH LA VIE CLAIRE AND THEIR FUNNY COURSES. BETTER CHANGE THEM NOW THAN WAIT FOR 20 PRO TEAMS TO PROTEST IT. BOD ELECTIONS. BALLOTS SENT OUT LAST WEEK. YOU HAVE 12 VOTES FROM MY CLUB. GET 10 MORE LIKE THAT AND YOU GOT IT. GOOD LUCK. -------

PDheader:1986-05-21 20:26:00-07:00 7957b2dd96792579342c81399887ff94 ∂21-May-86 2026 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA DRUG CONTROL{ Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 May 86 20:26:46 PDT Date: Wed 21 May 86 20:25:54-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: DRUG CONTROL{ To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

Interesting turn of events. Got a call from Bob Finnegan of Finnegan Mass Specs. Sent in a resume and stuff for a summer internship to do a marketing plan for their expansion into the sports drug testing market. This position could go very well with development of the Federation's medical control. So I will be talking to him tommorrow. Just got back from the Chem library doing some background research on Mass Spec's. Very haunting... I spent a lot of time as an undergraduate in the Chem and Bio libraries here. Another piece of gossip. Apparently one of the candidates for the board, no names mentioned, pulled (literally) a few too many riders at Modesto. Really messed up the race and cost Chris Huber the win. Very bad scene I was told. This gentleman has had a history of bungling this race as you might remember my griping about an incident two years ago when the same person refused to request photo finish equipment when Modesto was an NPC. Oh well, so goes a few popularity points.... Got a few more tidbits from Brian Geddes and David Prouty concerning legislation and resignation stuff. Will try and bring them by perhaps tommorrow or Friday after 5pm. The officials clinic this Saturday is a wash. Didn't have the time to hussle candidates. Oh Well. -------

PDheader:1986-05-22 18:01:00-07:00 8cd4c84443bc11d82f14082e314dfc67 ∂22-May-86 1801 LES re: DRUG CONTROL{ To: 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA [In reply to message sent Wed 21 May 86 20:25:54-PDT.]

I talked to Voxland today and told him that I plan to write a letter to Velo-news about the Prouty resignation and blame the mistiming on the misfits. He seemed to be clearly upset about the situation but is going to hang on. I will also write V-n a letter refuting an assertion in the latest issue by an old cigarette furnace named Paul Therrio that I advocate "deceit and fraud." I was rather peeved that Barbara George printed it during the election campaign without giving me a chance to respond. I told her so on the phone; she was somewhat apologetic and said she would be happy to print a response, but of course most people won't get it until after the voting deadline. Grr!

PDheader:1986-05-30 07:46:00-07:00 cde689599ed22ef751522350148a7b5c ∂30-May-86 0746 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA District Tracks Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 May 86 07:46:36 PDT Date: Fri 30 May 86 07:44:39-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: District Tracks To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Good Morning Les, Started to work on the District Tracks last night. I was wondering if you and/or Joan would be available for one or two of the days. The schedule is something like the following: Friday June 6 Sprint Qualifying Rounds Saturday June 7 Pursuits Junior Omniums Sprint Final Rounds Sunday June 8 Kilos Points Races what ever is left Friday and Saturday are the particularly needed days of help for especially judging and timing. I will be meeting with Bob Snyder on the 4th to set up the seeds for the sprints kilos, pursuits. I'm going to try a modified UCI sprint seeding. -------

PDheader:1986-06-06 08:23:00-07:00 e5536a99ad8dcb678cfb7c16d57c3c75 ∂06-Jun-86 0823 87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA Districts Received: from SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jun 86 08:23:28 PDT Date: Fri 6 Jun 86 08:21:17-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA> Subject: Districts To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

We have 31 Senior Men registered for tonight; 7 Senior Women; 3 Juniors. I have devised a scheme to go from 31 to 18 to 8 for tonight. I have used a modified UCI method of seeding and heat set up. I am hoping that 7 of the Senior Men do not show and we will have 24. That way we can try out the new UCI system of 24 to 12 to 8. For tommorrow, I am unsure of the help we will have. Do you have additional stop watches? If so can you bring them? Tonight we should have yourself, myself, Peter, Pete Gilbert, and Manuel Prado. See you around 6 ish. ------- a207 1104 17 Jun 86 AM-Nuclear Risks, Bjt,0511 Lay People Balk at Nuclear Industry Risk Estimates, Psychologist Says By MALCOLM RITTER AP Science Writer RENO, Nev. (AP) - Attempts to convince the public that nuclear power is safe can be thrwarted by the public's psychological barriers of mistrust and by unappealing ways of describing potential risks, a psychologist says. Statistics that compare nuclear energy risks to those of everyday life tend to be unsatisfying for lay people, whose notions of risk go beyond just numbers, said Paul Slovic of Decision Research, an Oregon institute that studies decision processes. ''These estimates seem very incomplete,'' said Slovic, who discussed public perceptions of nuclear power risks Monday at the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society. ''Even if they're right, they're not the whole story.'' What's missing are characteristics such as the degree to which the risk can be controlled, the dread it evokes, catastrophic potential and unfairness in who bears the risk versus who benefits from the technology that produces the risk, he said in an interview. Lack of such considerations show up in calculations such as one that says living near a nuclear reactor adds a one-in-a-million risk of death every year, he said. By one calculation, that risk equals the chance of death from accidents in traveling 10 miles on a bicycle or 1,000 miles on a jet, he said. a268 2013 01 Jul 86 But some question the level of risk. Dr. Hans Weill, a Tulane Medical School professor and researcher on occupational lung disease, said mathematical models predict that school children exposed to small amounts of asbestos over six years face the risk of five deaths per million over their lifetime. By comparison, high school football players face a death rate of 10 per million annually; bicycle riders face a death rate of 15 per million annually. Weill wonders, given those figures, if money spent to remove all asbestos would be well spent.

PDheader:1986-09-11 11:24:00-07:00 4c1909233cb043e5f454bf4834c55b3f ∂11-Sep-86 1124 LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Bicycling article Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 86 11:24:27 PDT Date: Thu 11 Sep 86 11:24:10-PDT From: John Lamping <LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Bicycling article To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12238131503.28.LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

My fiance, Anne Paulson, will be newsletter editor for Western Wheelers' "The Flat Tire" for the next three months. She was wondering aloud what should go in it, and I immediately thought you might well have a good submission. Do you have a bicycling story like the other stories you have posted to BBOARD, or information about how Stanford deals with bicycling, or a controversial editorial that you would like to submit? -------

PDheader:1986-09-12 17:01:00-07:00 1598ba4412e9fd25b85bb04d8caae6c6 ∂12-Sep-86 1701 lamping.pa@Xerox.COM re: Bicycling article Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 86 16:59:25 PDT Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 SEP 86 14:45:53 PDT Date: 12 Sep 86 14:45 PDT From: lamping.pa@Xerox.COM Subject: re: Bicycling article To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Message-ID: <860912-144553-4455@Xerox>

Those sound great. If you would pick a favorite and mail it to me, I could make a hardcopy for Anne to look at and then she could convert the text file to her format (Tedit).

PDheader:1986-09-22 18:22:00-07:00 bc3b190c6ff417678de4727d7b759b44 ∂22-Sep-86 1822 LES re: Bicycling article To: lamping.pa@XEROX.COM [In reply to message sent 12 Sep 86 14:45 PDT.]

After thrashing through my archives, I find that I haven't saved most of the source files of cycling articles. I have a 40 page (8.5 x 11) review of the USCF political structure, most of which is a history of sports bureaurcracy from 776 B.C. to the present. I also have a 7 page harangue that successfully convinced the USCF Board of Directors that they should adopt the ANSI Z90.4 helmet standard. I have them both in source files and hard copy. Having been in the Western Wheelers for a few years awhile back, I remember that the articles were generally rather short and preferably light. You are welcome to poke through this stuff, though I am not sure that it will match the interests of your readership. None of this material is short enough to publish in a single issue without adaptation.

PDheader:1986-09-23 10:10:00-07:00 1380118e1586e7694b79edee582ecf55 ∂23-Sep-86 1010 Lamping.pa@Xerox.COM re: Bicycling article Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 10:10:07 PDT Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 23 SEP 86 10:09:33 PDT Date: 23 Sep 86 10:08 PDT From: Lamping.pa@Xerox.COM Subject: re: Bicycling article In-reply-to: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>'s message of 22 Sep 86 18:22 PDT To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Message-ID: <860923-100933-1926@Xerox>

It sounds your bicycling archives are well worth poking through. Selecting choice tidbits from the history of sports bureaucracy since 776 B.C. sounds good. I'll start being on campus next week, so I will try to find you then. Thanks!

PDheader:1986-10-07 13:21:00-07:00 38f5c52ade40b51bc18515f9960d9820 ∂07-Oct-86 1321 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU On line again. Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 86 13:21:09 PDT Date: Tue 7 Oct 86 13:20:38-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: On line again. To: Les@SU-AI.ARPA

I just checked into the HOW system here and found messages from you just prior to Nevada City. I checked with Eric Peterson last night. He tells me that Ed Steffani scolded him (fate worse than death) over SJBC's voting for Leibold. He said that they should not have voted for him and that the vote would have been better used if it went to Alex Baum. Well, if Ed had spoken up sooner, Bob would have had 24 votes less---which would have been a number of votes less than what you got. We discussed the looming situation with Bob getting his hands into more and more of the district's operations---newsletter, vying to be the manager of the NCAA equipment, calendar assignments. Eric is finally getting the picture that all is not right with Bob. I have stopped submitting items to be printed in the NCCA newsletter over Bob's "editorial" changes which benefit his operations. I am in the process of writing a letter to Ernie expressing my concern "dissatifaction" over his lack of seriousness about the TC. I'm going to point out to him that he has now purposely or inadvertantly threatened me three times in my life on the Board. I'm going to ask for a clarification of what these threats mean and that he better make them public. Well I'm late to business policy or "PR for businesses caught with their pants down". -------

PDheader:1986-10-08 19:00:00-07:00 9c76650fc205dc88d42424cafad1baf8 ∂08-Oct-86 1900 LES Dead Cyclists had it Coming To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

You likely have read or heard of the accident near Gilroy on Sunday where four bicyclists (two couples) were mowed down and killed by an inattentive 18-year-old driver on a country road. By the accounts of witnesses, the cyclists were riding single file on the right shoulder. The driver said she looked down to get a tape casette. A driver who was going the opposite direction said he saw her car drift to the right just before picking them off. I read the newspaper accounts carefully, having myself bicycled a number of times along the road where the accident occurred. This is the kind of thing that gives cyclists nightmares -- you do everything right and still get picked off. An account in yesterday's San Jose Mercury news gave a bizarre interpretation of the accident by Gary Renstrom, a public information officer of the California Highway Patrol, who was quoted as saying that "a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there." In other words, if cyclists get injured or killed, it is their responsibility. Never mind that the law says that they have as much right to be on the highway as cars and trucks -- the CHP does not accept responsibility for their safety. I wanted to be sure that the newspaper quotation was accurate, so I called Mr. Renstrom; he has not returned my call so far. Based on earlier discussions with representatives of the CHP, I suspect that he was accurately quoted. Most members of that organization seem to regard themselves as protectors of motor vehicles; they regard cyclists and pedestrians as nuisances to be kept in their place. Mr. Renstrom was also quoted as saying that "Bicycles are prohibited from riding on freeways but are allowed on highways," which reveals that he doesn't even know what the law says -- there are many freeways where cyclists may ride in California, generally where there are no alternative routes. Having myself ridden a bike on thousands of miles of freeways throughout the West, I can report that the wide shoulders interrupted only every few miles by offramps make for far safer cycling than, say, El Camino Real. I plan to bring Mr. Renstrom's inaccurate knowledge of the law and ill-considered personal opinions to the attention of responsible authorities of the state government. While it likely will not be possible to fully straighten out the CHP on this issue any time soon, neither should such irresponsible public statements be permitted to go unchallenged. Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-10-09 12:12:00-07:00 401ed3c5f28cef159b498d5596eac4c2 ∂09-Oct-86 1212 LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Bicyclists had it coming Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 86 12:12:08 PDT Date: Thu 9 Oct 86 12:10:31-PDT From: John Lamping <LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Bicyclists had it coming To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12245479972.21.LAMPING@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

Is it OK with you if Anne reprints your original BBoard message in the Western Wheelers newsletter? -------

PDheader:1986-10-09 12:48:00-07:00 e397e9551a1c34f519e8b7850fd23a17 ∂09-Oct-86 1248 POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 86 12:48:39 PDT Date: Thu 9 Oct 86 12:45:25-PDT From: Bill Poser <POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA cc: LES@SU-AI.ARPA, su-etc@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>" of Thu 9 Oct 86 03:25:22-PDT

The news reports said that there was no alcohol involved but that the driver was reaching for a cassette. I'm ready to believe that because something of the same sort happened to me a few years ago. I was driving home very late at night on a narrow winding steep road (Diamond Hill Road, next to the Murray Hill Bell Labs site) minding my own business when suddenly I saw headlights coming straight at me. The approaching car stayed in my lane, and since there was no shoulder to escape to we hit more or less head on. Fortunately no one was seriousl injured, although my car was destroyed. The driver who hit me showed no signs of drunkenness, and was not cited for drunken driving by the police. In fact, his sobriety made the accident all the more surreal as he did not swerve once he entered my lane-he just came right at me. He said that he had reached down to adjust his stereo and when he looked up he was in the wrong lane. This is actually a pet peeve of mine: the location of instruments on the dashboard and near it does not seem to be thought out with safety in mind. There are lots of things that the driver cannot easily get at unless he or she has very long arms, and many instruments cannot be read quickly, without diverting attention from the road. This, coupled with the fact that lots of drivers think nothing of turning away from the road to talk or adjust things, probably makes for a lot of accidents. Given my experience when I worked at Bell, it scares the hell out of me. -------

PDheader:1986-10-09 13:51:00-07:00 1733d1d4a54d6d3d67a0808ed53e5840 ∂09-Oct-86 1351 roy@navajo.stanford.edu Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 86 13:51:24 PDT Received: by navajo.stanford.edu; Thu, 9 Oct 86 13:50:38 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 13:50:38 PDT From: Shaibal Roy <roy@navajo.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming To: LES@sail.stanford.edu Cc: su-etc@sushi.stanford.edu

I have seen too many bad drivers on Woodside Road (on 84 between 280 and 1) and the Skyline Blvd. Most are out there to try out just how fast can his/her new hot-shot car take turns. They seem to be only too eager to go over the right shoulder in a right turn, even if they can't see what's on the shoulder of the road around the corner. Each time I see someone do that, I am outraged. What if an unlucky biker just happened to be there? (and there are a lot of bikers on 84) Let alone bikes, the way they go around sharp turns, they would probably hit a car parked on the shoulder if there was one. Soon after I learnt driving, I used to feel frustrated to see bikers ride right at the center of the lane except on long stretches of straight road. But now that I have some of these drivers, I know I'd do the same. I have often wondered whether I should call the CHP or the local police to report some of the worse offenders. Has anyone tried this? Would such a report have any effect?

PDheader:1986-10-09 16:47:00-07:00 56d184c811e030e12581a92263adcad3 ∂09-Oct-86 1647 RWF

>An account in yesterday's San Jose Mercury news gave a bizarre interpretation of the accident by Gary Renstrom, a public information officer of the California Highway Patrol, who was quoted as saying that "a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there." In other words, if cyclists get injured or killed, it is their responsibility. Never mind that the law says that they have as much right to be on the highway as cars and trucks -- the CHP does not accept responsibility for their safety. >I wanted to be sure that the newspaper quotation was accurate, so I called Mr. Renstrom; he has not returned my call so far. Based on earlier discussions with representatives of the CHP, I suspect that he was accurately quoted. Most members of that organization seem to regard themselves as protectors of motor vehicles; they regard cyclists and pedestrians as nuisances to be kept in their place. Les: How do read Renstrom as saying that the CHP is not `responsible for their safety', except in the general sense that the CHP can not prevent accidents; it enforces the law and cleans up the messes. I find it perfectly possible to read his statement as saying that major highways are inherently dangerous for bikes. I have the right to drink in the bar where the Hell's Angels hang out; do you want the police to guarantee I won't get killed? There are roads that I think are inherently dangerous for anyone. The Hecker Pass road is beautiful, but I don't much feel like driving it. Isn't it reasonable to warn cyclists from Los Altos Hills and such that there are places they shouldn't try? >Mr. Renstrom was also quoted as saying that "Bicycles are prohibited from riding on freeways but are allowed on highways," which reveals that he doesn't even know what the law says -- there are many freeways where cyclists may ride in California, generally where there are no alternative routes. Having myself ridden a bike on thousands of miles of freeways throughout the West, I can report that the wide shoulders interrupted only every few miles by offramps make for far safer cycling than, say, El Camino Real. Les, you're talking at cross purposes. He says its illegal, you say it's safe. In many places you're both right. Give the guy a break. You're reading him as saying they had it coming; why, because he's a cop? Like many people, he only knows his own turf. That includes Blood Alley. If he were a professor, he would have a general theory of bikes on freeways. They don't pay him to do that.

PDheader:1986-10-09 16:57:00-07:00 3ab83b323e0ca2bd8b937d5e9976f1dd ∂09-Oct-86 1657 CASBS@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Thanks Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 86 16:57:00 PDT Date: Thu 9 Oct 86 16:53:49-PDT From: Lynn Gale <CASBS@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: Thanks To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of bicyclists! I wish we had a strong political voice. It is frustrating that MY taxes are used for roads, intersections, signs and signals that are developed by drivers for drivers with little or no consideration for their suitability for bicyclists and pedestrians. This, despite the fact that in the global scheme of things bicyclists and pedestrians are arguably better for the community. -------

PDheader:1986-10-09 18:14:00-07:00 57a5a254729ae48108d50f81b0ebdfff ∂09-Oct-86 1814 LES Dead Cyclists To: RWF [In reply to message rcvd 09-Oct-86 16:47-PT.]

One of the chief responsibilities of the CHP and its parent organization, Caltrans, is to ensure the safety of ALL users of the highways. When a CHP officer being interviewed about a fatal cycling accident says that "a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there," then it is clear to me that he is trying to evade responsibility. You can read his statement any way you like, but I am going to hold him responsible for doing his job. If a road is not safe for cyclists, then it is the responsibility of government authorities to make it safe or provide an alternative route for the cyclists. Actually, Hecker Pass SHOULD be quite safe, in that there are adequate shoulders over most of it and relatively little traffic. You didn't read my statement carefully. I said that riding on some freeways is BOTH legal AND safe. Renstrom, like most CHP officers that I have talked to, clearly doesn't know the law. He does not even "know his own turf" in that there are freeways in Santa Clara county where cycling is permitted. "Blood Alley," for your information, has always been one of the safest places to ride a bicycle -- it has nice wide shoulders and relatively little cross traffic. It acquired that nickname because of the frequent head-on collisions between cars before the center barrier was built. The heavy traffic there never caused serious problems for cyclists; I have ridden it many times. I will plan to give Renstrom a break sometime after Hell freezes over. For now I will settle for frying his buns. Les

PDheader:1986-10-15 13:35:00-07:00 205b7dc4c3e39cc5bbd0ad57684094ed ∂15-Oct-86 1335 LES Dead Cyclists had it Coming? To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

[A week ago I posted an attack on certain statements attributed to a California Highway Patrol spokesman by the San Jose Mercury News. I have since interviewed that spokesman, another state official, and both reporters who wrote the article in question. I now believe that the quoted statements were distorted by one of the reporters (Gary Richards) and that he was also responsible for the bizarre slant of the article. Consequently, I have sent the following letter to the editor as a way of putting his feet in the fire. -Les] Letters to the Editor San Jose Mercury News 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 The recent filing of manslaughter charges against an 18-year-old driver in connection with the tragic deaths of four cyclists near Gilroy on October 5 brings the investigative phase of this case to a close, but an article in the San Jose Mercury News on October 7 attributes statements to a representative of the California Highway Patrol that look like an outrageous attempt to shift responsibility for the accident to the victims. Further investigation indicates that the article distorted those remarks. I have often bicycled past the place where the accident occurred. It is a scenic country road that twists and climbs through a redwood forest to Hecker Pass on the way to Watsonville. It is a beautiful route for a bicycle ride and usually has only moderate traffic. In my opinion, it is as safe for cyclists as most public roads. By the accounts of witnesses, the four bicyclists (two couples) were riding single file on the right shoulder of the road when overtaken by a car going about 50 MPH. The driver later said she looked down to get a tape cassette. A driver who was going the opposite direction saw her car drift to the right just before picking off the cyclists. Had she drifted left instead of right, there might have been a head-on collision with the oncoming car, with comparable loss of life, but that wasn't what happened on this occasion. This is the kind of situation that gives cyclists nightmares -- they apparently did everything right and still got run over. While the evidence indicated that the direct cause of the accident was driver carelessness, one of your writers (Gary Richards) apparently sought a deeper explanation. Instead of asking ``How can accidents of this sort be prevented,'' he reportedly asked state officials how *cyclists* could avoid such accidents. He should have been told that ``It is very hard to avoid being run over from behind by a driver going 50 MPH who is not watching the road'' or he could have been asked ``Why are you asking such a stupid question?'' Instead, the officials foolishly offered some personal views on bicycle safety strategies. In the cited article, Richards reported these opinions as if they were official policies. For example, he attributes to Gary Renstrom, a public information officer of the California Highway Patrol, the view that ``a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there.'' In other words, if cyclists get injured or killed on a highway, it is their responsibility. Never mind that the law says that they have as much right to be there as cars and trucks -- the article implies that the CHP (or at least Mr. Renstrom) does not accept responsibility for their safety. Mr. Renstrom now states that he was misquoted. He says that he offered the opinion that ``I would not ride there'' and made it clear that he was expressing a personal view. Dan Parker of Caltrans says that remarks he made about defensive riding were similarly distorted in the article by Richards. When included in a report on the tragic accident, the official-looking statements to the effect that cyclists should not ride on highways invite the conclusion that the cyclists were responsible for their own deaths. This appears to be the result of your writer asking the wrong questions and adapting the resulting statements to support his ill-considered views. By a copy of this letter, I invite CHP officials to clarify their policies in this area. I also invite the Mercury News staff to use a lot more common sense in probing future events. Sincerely, Les Earnest cc: Gary Richards, Jack Foley (S.J. Mercury News) Gary Renstrom, Capt. Chuck Brady (San Jose CHP) Dan Parker (Caltrans, Sacremento)

PDheader:1986-10-15 18:30:00-07:00 011505a3f29379d636bd1567d415566a ∂15-Oct-86 1830 HIRSH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Oct 86 18:29:58 PDT Date: Wed 15 Oct 86 18:29:09-PDT From: Haym Hirsh <HIRSH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 15 Oct 86 13:35:00-PDT Message-ID: <12247121765.28.HIRSH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

Two things you say in the letter conflict with info given in the Chronicle. The Chronicle states that misdemeanor charges only were filed, and that the driver never took her eyes off the road, but rather was blindly groping behind her for a tape. The short article claims the shadows from eucalyptus trees lining the road could have been the cause for the driver not seeing the cyclists. I, of course, do not know the veracity of the claimed facts, and they do not explain the driver's hitting the cyclists on the shoulder of the road. Haym -------

PDheader:1986-10-19 20:29:00-07:00 967dc65591ee8b41a4fc6f31bfdbfb3e ∂19-Oct-86 2029 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU FED STUFF Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Oct 86 20:29:28 PDT Date: Sun 19 Oct 86 20:28:45-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: FED STUFF To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA

LOOKS LIKE I'M GOING ON A FEW MORE AIRPLANE TRIPS. FRIDAY I LEAVE FOR CO SPRINGS FOR ERNIE'S OFFICIAL'S SUMMER CAMP. THEN PROCEDE SUNDAY TO RENO FOR INTERBIKE TO HELP FIND ASSOCIATE SPONSORS FOR THE COLLEGIATE NATIONALS. CAN'T SEEM TO PUT MY FINGER ON WHAT ERNIE IS UP TO. AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, I REALLY PUT THE HEAT ON HIM AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING. HE LEFT MESSAGES ON MY MACHINE TO CALL HIM BACK LAST WEEK OR SO. I FINALLY GOT A CHANCE TO DO SO. HE WAS RATHER CONSOLING TRYING TO EMPHASIZE THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSE TO DO AFTER THE TC MEETING. THEN I CALLED BETH I THINK FRIDAY AND SHE HAD A RATHER DIFFERENT CONVERSATION WITH HIM. HE ELOQUENTLY HINTED THAT SHE AND I WERE RATHER NAIVE ABOUT POLITICS AND WHY DID WE INSIST ON BEING SO HONEST. I WORRY A BIT ABOUT BEING SWEETLY LEAD DOWN A PATH AND THEN FIND THAT THE KNIVES HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM BEHIND. BETH HAS ALREADY FIGURED THAT ERNIE HAS LINKED ME TO HER AND ONCE LUMPED TOGETHER WE BOTH ARE SCREWED AS FAR AS OFFICIAL'S ASSIGNMENTS NEXT YEAR. COULD BE BETH'S PARANOIA PERKING UP AGAIN OR IT COULD BE ERNIE'S TYPICAL WAY OF DOING THINGS. IT SEEMS THAT LIGHTBULB HASN'T DONE LEGISLATION YET! I TRIED TO CALL HIM ABOUT WHETHER HE RECEIVED MEDICAL CONTROLS REVISIONS THAT I DREW UP YET AND HE FINALLY AFTER A WEEK PLUS CALLED BACK. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE PLAYING ANSWERING MACHINE TAG. ALSO UNFORTUNATELY, THE BOARD ALSO HAS ITS RESOLUTION TO SEND MATERIALS TO THE CLUBS 6O DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE BOARD MEETING. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE TO DATE. EVEN IF HE GETS IT OUT BY NEXT WEEKEND, THE MATERIAL WON'T GET TO THE CLUBS UNTIL 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING. NOT A GOOD START. HE WANTED TO USE MY ORPHANED PC-JR AT MY PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY HE DIDN'T SEEM TO CATCH ON THAT IT WOULD TAKE A DAY IN ITSELF TO LEARN THE WORD-PROCESSING SOFTWARE. MY CLUB RAN A TRACK RACE TODAY. THE FIRST SUCH THAT WAS NOT SJBC SINCE ABOUT 1983 OR SO. TERRY SHAW, PETER BOHL, AND ED STEFFANI WERE ALL GREAT HELP. I HAVE ALSO TURNED OVER THE REIGNS TO MY CLUB TO ANOTHER. THE WORK LOAD HERE AND OTHERWISE IS TOO MUCH FOR ME TO KEEP TRACK OF A CLUB. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH WE MAY HAVE A REVIVAL OF A FRIDAY NIGHT SERIES NEXT YEAR IN AN ABBREVIATED 6 TO 8 WEEK FORMAT. ALSO, MY CLUB MAY PUT ON AN OLYMPIC STYLE SERIES RIGHT BEFORE DISTRICTS NEXT YEAR. SJBC WILL BE GETTING ITS OLD TIMER'S CERTIFIED AS OFFICIALS FOR NEXT YEAR SOLVING OUR TRACK OFFICIAL PROBLEM. WELL IT'S OFF TO STRATEGIC MANUFACTURING CASE TIME. -------

PDheader:1986-10-20 20:31:00-07:00 95afa78756d9a25240992efa0cf2f4e2 ∂20-Oct-86 2031 LES Safety First To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

[The San Jose Mercury News has so far declined to publish my earlier letter attacking an alleged assertion by the California Highway Patrol that cyclists should not use highways. In fact, they have not published *any* dissenting letters. Instead, their Saturday edition included a reaffirmation of this idea by one of their columnists. Here is my response.] Letters to the Editor San Jose Mercury News 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 In an October 18 column in your paper, Wes Peyton says that bicyclists should not ride on highways on the grounds of safety. His concern is certainly well-founded and his logic is impeccable but he seems to be grappling with the wrong end of the problem. About 1,000 people die in bicycling accidents in the U.S. each year, but nearly all of these occur on urban streets and bike paths rather than highways. It seems obvious that banning cyclists from highways *would* save a few lives, but there is another alternative that would save a many more. More than 40 times as many people die each year in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. Applying Mr. Peyton's logic, a much better solution would be to bar all motor vehicles from highways. This would save both the few lives of the cyclists who are currently run over there *and* the thousands of lives of motorists who are killed on highways. There would also be a number of other beneficial side effects as discussed below. Before you jump to the conclusion that this is a radical proposal, please note that I am not advocating the *elimination* of motor vehicles -- just keeping them off the highways. Motor vehicles would still be permitted on city streets and country roads. Under this proposal, interurban commercial transport would be restricted to aircraft and railroads, which would greatly stimulate the companies engaged in these activities. With motor vehicles out of the way, highways and freeways would be much less congested, so cyclists, horsemen and pedestrians could move freely along these routes. The California Highway Patrol could be substantially reduced in size, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The resulting net reduction in consumption of petroleum products would allow us to thumb our noses at OPEC and would likely eliminate our international trade deficit. Given that highway fuel economy would no longer be a consideration, it will be desirable to raise freeway speed limits to at least 65 MPH to match current bicycle technology. (Last Spring, Fred Markham of Los Gatos exceeded 65 MPH in a streamlined bike on a level stretch of highway near Mono Lake. Fortunately, the CHP wasn't looking.) There will be some economic adjustments needed, of course. Our reduced needs for automobiles and petroleum will impact not only the Japanese and Arabs, but also certain residents of Detroit and Houston. Reductions in automobile advertising revenue will probably even squeeze the Mercury News a bit, but I am sure that you can adjust -- just get rid of some of your dim-witted columnists. Sincerely, Les Earnest P.S. Wes Peyton demonstrates his ignorance of the law by repeating the fallacious claim that it is illegal for cyclists to ride on freeways. In fact, there are many freeways in California and other states where cyclists may legally ride. Having ridden on thousands of miles of freeways throughout the West, I can report that the wide shoulders interrupted only every few miles by offramps provide far safer cycling than urban routes such as El Camino Real, where one must dodge doors popping open from parked vehicles and cars turning abruptly right across one's path. Mr. Peyton acknowledges that about a dozen letters to the editor have been received in opposition to the view he advocates and that he attributes to the California Highway Patrol. Noting that none of those letters has appeared in your paper, I am led to wonder why they are being systematically excluded. Could it be because a full discussion would expose substantial distortions in the October 7 Mercury News article? As I pointed out in an earlier letter, the CHP does not appear to have taken such a position -- it was a fabrication of one of your reporters.

PDheader:1986-10-20 22:12:00-07:00 e6b2f2739de2d23fed69f43d72ee4197 ∂20-Oct-86 2212 A.ERIC@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU Re: Safety First Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 86 22:12:04 PDT Date: Mon 20 Oct 86 22:08:57-PDT From: Eric M. Berg <A.ERIC@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: Re: Safety First To: su-etc@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU cc: les@SU-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 20 Oct 86 20:31:00-PDT Phone-#s: 723-1576 (GSB-CF), 329-9940 (home), 725-6900 x.31576 (Voice mail)

Many newpapers now have "ombudsmen" whose job it is to address concerns about the fairness & accuracy of their news stories. Perhaps Les Earnest should see if the San Jose Mercury News has one, and (if so) whether he/she would be willing to look into the bicycle safety question. -------

PDheader:1986-10-21 09:49:00-07:00 9dd2a5a71f5ed4abbcc721737cff419c ∂21-Oct-86 0949 SCHREYER@Sierra.Stanford.EDU And this is the Bay's best newspaper? Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 86 09:49:42 PDT Date: Tue 21 Oct 86 09:48:58-PDT From: Timothy A. Schreyer <SCHREYER@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> Subject: And this is the Bay's best newspaper? To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12248599932.43.SCHREYER@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>

Cycling letters One other point in your message that I neglected to cover: I haven't seen the dozen or so letters of dissent received by the Mercury News. That number came from their columnist, Wes Peyton. Les, I know other people who have gripes against the Mercury news for fabrication and manipulation of public opinion, and I would like to show them the articles you have posted on bboard. Could you please send me a copy of those articles (if you still have them)? I would greatly appreciate it. Also, forgive my ignorance of the subject, but in the article you posted today, I am unclear on some of the things you spoke of. Is Wes Peyton the author of the Oct 18 article, or is he the officer quoted? And could you send a note to su-etc elaborating on the dozen or so letters which the Mercury has not published? Thanks, Tim Schreyer -------

PDheader:1986-10-21 10:43:00-07:00 ff401adc4649e4107f1124863841ad4a ∂21-Oct-86 1043 WALKER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU RE: safety first Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 86 10:43:52 PDT Date: Tue 21 Oct 86 10:42:18-PDT From: John Walker <WALKER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: RE: safety first To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12248609641.18.WALKER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

I have absolutely loved your letters to the San Jose Mercury News. As a cyclist, I fully agree with your views. -- John Walker -------

PDheader:1986-10-21 11:21:00-07:00 3c4e5ff8a8a7d286e3f01ff877937266 ∂21-Oct-86 1121 LAU@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Safety First Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 86 11:21:08 PDT Date: Tue 21 Oct 86 11:19:33-PDT From: Garrett Lau <LAU@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Safety First To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 20 Oct 86 20:31:00-PDT Message-ID: <12248616422.29.LAU@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

Do you realize how much space that letter would take up in a newspaper? Perhaps the Mercury would print it if you editted it a bit. --Garrett -------

PDheader:1986-10-21 15:16:00-07:00 dce797c928cbef322918fd23a5eb7733 ∂21-Oct-86 1516 LES re: And this is the Bay's best newspaper? To: SCHREYER@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue 21 Oct 86 09:48:58-PDT.]

A copy of the letter I sent to the Mercury News last week is attached. This is the only other letter I have sent on this subject. In response to your question, Wes Peyton is the author of the Oct. 18 column but not the distorted Oct. 9 "news" article. The CHP spokesman was Gary Renstrom of their San Jose office. Les

PDheader:1986-10-21 19:30:00-07:00 a1e8fe481be831adda8f282995e21c92 ∂21-Oct-86 1930 LES re: Questions for BBOARD cyclists To: ANDREW@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue 21 Oct 86 17:49:32-PDT.]

The standard bikie tour is "the loop." Go up Page Mill and Old Page Mill Roads, turn right on Arastradero, left on Alpine, right on Portola Valley Road which turns into Sand Hill Road, then back to Stanford. About 20 miles around. On most weekends, you can find pace lines going just about any speed you like on this route. Big Sur is an interesting bike ride, with some good restaurants in the area. You can bike from here to there in a day or can drive down, then ride some of the rugged coast. The Sonoma and Mendocino coasts are also quite rewarding, though the dirt roads in Mendocino are best handled on a mountain bike. I've ridden all of the West Coast from Canada to Mexico and recommend most of it, not including certain parts of Washington where logging trucks deliberately run you off the road. See the October edition of "California Bicyclist" for some other tours farther afield. Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-10-26 23:23:00-08:00 648f647f4b6e47f0b1f56552fe7289f8 ∂26-Oct-86 2323 LES Letter to Mercury News To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

The San Jose Mercury News printed most of my letter proposing that all motor vehicles be barred from highways. It appeared on Saturday in a column by Wes Peyton, who was the target of my letter. Not surprisingly, he omitted the nasty postscript. Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) A tragic accident on October 5 near Gilroy, California that took the lives of four cyclists has received bizarre treatment in the local press. Some ill-conceived personal opinions expressed by state officials were quoted as if they represented official policy, giving the appearance of an attempt to incorrectly assign the blame for the accident to the victims. Even though the driver of the car has been charged with manslaughter, the peripheral issues in this case reflect a public relations problem that cyclists must learn to deal with. The accident occurred on a scenic country road that twists and climbs through a redwood forest to Hecker Pass, overlooking Monterey Bay. It is a beautiful route for a bicycle ride and usually has only moderate traffic. I have ridden through there often over the last 20 years and believe that it is as safe for cyclists as most public roads. By the accounts of witnesses, two couples were riding their bikes single file on the right shoulder of the road when overtaken by a car going about 50 MPH. The 18-year-old driver later said she had looked down to get a tape cassette. A driver who was going the opposite direction saw her car drift to the right just before picking off the cyclists. Had she drifted left instead of right, there might have been a head-on collision with the oncoming car, with comparable loss of life, but that wasn't what happened on this occasion. This is the kind of situation that gives cyclists nightmares -- the victims apparently did everything right and still got run over. An article describing the accident in the San Jose Mercury News on October 7 attributed to Gary Renstrom, a public information officer of the California Highway Patrol, the view that ``a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there.'' In other words, if cyclists get injured or killed on a highway, it is their responsibility. Never mind that the law says that they have as much right to be there as cars and trucks -- the article implied that the CHP (or at least Mr. Renstrom) does not accept responsibility for their safety. The thesis of this article struck me as so outragious that I decided to try to bash it. Knowing first hand of the tendency of reporters to put their own opinions into the mouths of their interviewees, I decided to check with the sources. I talked to both Officer Renstrom and a Caltrans official who was also quoted in the article. When I found discrepancies between what they claimed they said and what the article reported, I then interviewed the two reporters who wrote the article. Inasmuch as there were no tape recordings of the earlier interviews, it is not possible to prove conclusively what was asked and answered, but my conclusion was that one of the reporters (Gary Richards) was the primary source of the misinformation. While the evidence indicated that the direct cause of the accident was driver carelessness, reporter Richards apparently sought a deeper explanation. Instead of asking ``How can accidents of this sort be prevented,'' he apparently asked the officials how *cyclists* could avoid such accidents. He should have been told that ``It is very hard to avoid being run over from behind by a driver going 50 MPH who is not watching the road'' or he could have been asked ``Why are you asking such a stupid question?'' Instead, the officials foolishly offered some personal views on bicycle safety strategies. The CHP officer says that he offered the opinion that ``I personally would not ride there'' and made it clear that he was expressing a personal view. This is significantly different from that statement attributed to him as a ``CHP spokesman'' that ``a highway is no place for a bicyclist, even though it is legal to ride there.'' I noted that the newspaper article did not use quotation marks, which implictly acknowledged that it was a paraphrase. The Caltrans official says that remarks he made about defensive riding were similarly distorted in the article by Richards. When included in a report on the accident, the official-looking statement to the effect that cyclists should not ride on highways invites the conclusion that the cyclists were responsible for their own deaths. This appears to be the result of the reporter asking the wrong questions and adapting the resulting statements to support his ill-considered views. I believe that the all-too-popular prejudices that gave rise to this curious view represent an ongoing public relations problem that must be overcome by education and political action. Failing that, cyclists will have to resign themselves to being second-class citizens. I subsequently urged the San Jose office of the CHP to go on record stating their official policy with respect to cycling on highways. They declined to do so. I also wrote a letter to the editor of the Mercury News pointing out the apparent distortions in the article. They declined to print it. Instead, a week later one of their columnists acknowledged having received a number of adverse comments, but he also repeated the assertion that cyclists should not ride on highways. I will post my reponse to that column separately. Les Earnest Stanford University (which is not responsible for my opinions) [This is a response to a column appeared in a local newspaper. Most of this letter was published in column on October 25 by the same person who wrote the original column.] Letters to the Editor San Jose Mercury News 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 In an October 18 column in your paper, Wes Peyton says that bicyclists should not ride on highways on the grounds of safety. His concern is certainly well-founded and his logic is impeccable but he seems to be grappling with the wrong end of the problem. About 1,000 people die in bicycling accidents in the U.S. each year, but nearly all of these occur on urban streets and bike paths rather than highways. It seems obvious that banning cyclists from highways *would* save a few lives, but there is another alternative that would save a many more. More than 40 times as many people die each year in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. Applying Mr. Peyton's logic, a much better solution would be to bar all motor vehicles from highways. This would save both the few lives of the cyclists who are currently run over there *and* the thousands of lives of motorists who are killed on highways. There would also be a number of other beneficial side effects as discussed below. Before you jump to the conclusion that this is a radical proposal, please note that I am not advocating the *elimination* of motor vehicles -- just keeping them off the highways. Motor vehicles would still be permitted on city streets and country roads. Under this proposal, interurban commercial transport would be restricted to aircraft and railroads, which would greatly stimulate the companies engaged in these activities. With motor vehicles out of the way, highways and freeways would be much less congested, so cyclists, horsemen and pedestrians could move freely along these routes. The California Highway Patrol could be substantially reduced in size, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The resulting net reduction in consumption of petroleum products would allow us to thumb our noses at OPEC and would likely eliminate our international trade deficit. Given that highway fuel economy would no longer be a consideration, it will be desirable to raise freeway speed limits to at least 65 MPH to match current bicycle technology. (Last Spring, Fred Markham of Los Gatos exceeded 65 MPH in a streamlined bike on a level stretch of highway near Mono Lake. Fortunately, the CHP wasn't looking.) There will be some economic adjustments needed, of course. Our reduced needs for automobiles and petroleum will impact not only the Japanese and Arabs, but also certain residents of Detroit and Houston. Reductions in automobile advertising revenue will probably even squeeze the Mercury News a bit, but I am sure that you can adjust -- just get rid of some of your dim-witted columnists. Sincerely, Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-10-30 12:11:00-08:00 3840c45f25d44294d873e90c1854b8be ∂30-Oct-86 1211 burich.pa@xerox.com Commentary on Hecker Pass Accident Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Oct 86 12:11:09 PST Received: from XEROX.COM by navajo.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 30 Oct 86 10:10:55 PST Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 30 OCT 86 09:43:07 PST Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 9:42:48 PST From: burich.pa@xerox.com Subject: Commentary on Hecker Pass Accident To: lester@navajo.stanford.edu Message-Id: <861030-094307-1475@Xerox>

Les, It's true -- Cathy Miller is going to suffer (mentally) for the rest of her life for the deaths of the 4 cyclists. However, it doesn't mean that she shouldn't be reprimanded severely. It appears from the articles that I've read that she will not receive a sentence, just probation?! This to me is an outrage. Would she have been sentenced if she had killed 4 motorists? Most likely. The comments by the CHP and CALTRANS personnel are utterly disgusting as well. If one of the 4 cyclists had been a friend or relative, I'm sure they would've responded differently. I hope at the very least that she/her family gets sued to the hilt; that she never drives an automobile again; and, she is forced to ride a bicycle everywhere she goes for the rest of her life! ~Vicki Burich

PDheader:1986-10-30 14:11:00-08:00 1ba89b2477fa9d1da03d405909f82965 ∂30-Oct-86 1411 LES re: Commentary on Hecker Pass Accident To: burich.pa@XEROX.COM [In reply to message sent Thu, 30 Oct 86 9:42:48 PST.]

Hi Vicki! I didn't know you were on the net. While the statements by the CHP and Caltrans people were clearly rather foolish, the point I was trying to make was that the transformation of their remarks into irresponsible "public policy" was apparently done by the reporter, Gary Richards. Unfortunately, this kind of "journalism" appears to be rather common. For example, three weeks ago some remarks that I made about a persistent but unremarkable group of computer crackers who had caused trouble in some of our Unix systems were turned into an article about a "brilliant hacker named Pink Floyd" on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner and subsequently on the A.P. wireservice and various television stations. The story was about 90% bogus, but no one was interested in bringing that fact to the public. The primary concern of most reporters is getting a good story; if it also happens to be mostly true, they consider that to be a bonus. Most reporters and editors are no more interested in exposing their colleagues' blunders than are medical doctors. I note that the San Jose Mercury News still has not acknowledged any inaccuracies in its reporting of the Hecker Pass case. It does appear that Cathy Miller is going to receive soft treatment, unfortunately. This is consistent with the view that cyclists are not real people. That lesson was driven home to me awhile back when a fellow in a pickup truck deliberately rammed me on my bike, then took off without stopping. As luck would have it, he missed my right ankle by a fraction of a second, hit the chainstay and pretzelled my rear wheel. Through persistence and a stroke of luck, I was able to catch him 10 minutes later and get the police there. Even though there was ample physical evidence of the accident (e.g. paint from my bike on his bumper) and the driver made a semi-confession, the D.A. declined to prosecute! One reason given was that I wasn't badly injured. Of course, if I had been injured, I wouldn't have caught the S.O.B.! I now wish that I had administered appropriate punishment myself. Oh well, keep on spinning! Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-10-30 15:06:00-08:00 47dcd860f4990fb09a9099ea35af4729 ∂30-Oct-86 1506 @po3.andrew.cmu.edu:rs4u@andrew.cmu.edu Re: Dead Cyclists Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Oct 86 15:06:42 PST Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by navajo.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 30 Oct 86 15:05:01 PST Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (4.12/3.15) id <AA00882>; Thu, 30 Oct 86 18:05:04 est Received: FROM essington VIA queuemail

ID </cmu/common/mailqs/q002/QF.essington.1fa7e719.4>; Thu, 30 Oct 86 18:03:04 est Received: FROM essington VIA queuemail ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.essington.1fa7d990.18>; Thu, 30 Oct 86 17:05:04 est Message-Id: <MS.V3.10.rs4u.0.essington.4312.0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 16:58:20 est From: rs4u@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Siegel) To: lester@navajo.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists Les: I saw your post on net.cycling. I am shocked beyond words, and furious. Please keep me updated on the situation; I can neither read Usenet regularly or post to it. Could you possibly send me a copy of that article? I believe I'd like to write a few letters... --Rich Richard Siegel 5115 Margaret Morrison Street Box 698 Pittsburgh, Pa 15213 (412)268-4224

PDheader:1986-10-30 22:02:00-08:00 63068c5cd667bd68f0d9f6aa82b2a7dc ∂30-Oct-86 2202 maariano%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Oct 86 22:01:54 PST Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (RELAY.CS.NET) by navajo.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 30 Oct 86 19:31:51 PST Received: from waterloo by csnet-relay.csnet id ae02440; 30 Oct 86 12:11 EST Received: from watdragon.uucp by watmath; Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:49:52 est Received: by watdragon; Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:47:39 est Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:47:39 est From: Marco Ariano <maariano%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET> Message-Id: <8610301647.AA08563@watdragon.uucp> To: lester@navajo.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming?

Not much to say except that I'm impressed by your concientious efforts in this matter. It's good to see someone taking some initiative for a change. Good luck getting the record straight. Thanks, -- Marco Ariano UUCP:{ihnp4|allegra|decvax|tektronix}!watmath!watdragon!maariano CSNET: maariano%watdragon@waterloo.CSNET ARPA: maariano%watdragon%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.CSNET BITNET: maariano%watdragon%waterloo@csnet-relay.ARPA U. of Waterloo else?: maariano@watdragon.waterloo.CDN

PDheader:1986-10-31 10:57:00-08:00 ba0d5c861291895a7dc01f911480a6d0 ∂31-Oct-86 1057 E8D%PSUVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Oct 86 10:57:34 PST Received: from WISCVM.WISC.EDU by navajo.stanford.edu with TCP; Fri, 31 Oct 86 10:55:34 PST Received: from (E8D)PSUVM.BITNET by WISCVM.WISC.EDU on 10/31/86 at 12:54:56 CST Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 13:54 EST From: <E8D%PSUVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> To: lester@navajo.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) References: 1033@navajo.STANFORD.EDU

I want to thank you for the good article and the great research you did on the incident. Too many of us (including myself) would have just expressed outrage at the policeman' statement. I do still, however, take a fairly cynical view of the cop's possible role in the newspaper report. It's easy to back off on an inapropriate verbal statement when confronted with it. I also feel that the personal opinions of police officers (as opposed to department policy) are very important in how justice is served. Incident: In a driver-cyclist(me) altercation the officer laying charges (both of us-after my complaint) wrote in his report (that I was not allowed to see until after my first trial) that "It should be noted that the road was narrow and the cyclist was putting himself in [some?] danger by riding there". I feel this implies that I had a recless(how do you spell that?) attitude and somehow may have sort of deserved being attacked. The trooper's opinion had nothing directly to do with the case but I think was prejudicial. Incident: A co-worker of mine was nailed from behind while biking by a driver who was reaching down for a notebook. The policeman told her not to contact the driver's insurance company, I think he advised her not to bother with a lawyer, and it took several calls to the police before they agreed to charge the driver with a traffic violation. If she had followed his advice, if the driver had not been charged, I think it would have been a lot harder to recoup her bike damages and medical expenses. Well, I don't know what to do. It seems that anytime there is a crime where the victim is blamed, it's harder to nail the criminal and the same applies to litigation. We cyclists need the police on our side because we are vulnerable so their attitude is important. The same applies to reporters because the newspapers can influence public opinions and actions. I'm glad you followed up the story because maybe those involved will begin to question their default assumptions. ------- Disclaimer: Sorry about the spelling. Evan Dresel Dept. of Geochemistry E8D @ PSUVM (bitnet) 228 Deike Bldg. ...!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!e8d (uucp <--> Penn State University bitnet gateway) University Park, PA 16802 e8d%psuvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa (arpa) (814) 863-0672

PDheader:1986-10-31 14:39:00-08:00 43500ffed248ea4fdbdf19c2064779cd ∂31-Oct-86 1439 LES re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) To: E8D%PSUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 31 Oct 86 13:54 EST.]

I agree that the state officials were partly responsible for the bizarre statements attributed to them. They also acted irresponsibly by privately disowning the published statements but declining to set the public record staight. Your experiences with the police are similar to mine -- they generally regard cyclists as second class citizens. For example, awhile back a fellow in a pickup truck deliberately rammed me on my bike, then took off without stopping. As luck would have it, he missed my right ankle by a fraction of a second, hit the chainstay and pretzelled my rear wheel. Through persistence and a stroke of luck, I was able to catch him 10 minutes later and get the police there. Even though there was ample physical evidence of the accident (e.g. paint from my bike on his bumper) and the driver made a semi-confession, the D.A. declined to prosecute! One reason given was that I wasn't badly injured. Of course, if I had been injured, I wouldn't have caught the S.O.B.! I now wish that I had administered appropriate punishment myself. Keep on spinning! Les Earnest

PDheader:1986-11-03 07:13:00-08:00 4fd23fb9ce35fc4a796b329826576655 ∂03-Nov-86 0713 hodor%hplabsb@hplabs.hp.com Accident Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Nov 86 07:12:57 PST Received: from hplabs.hp.com by navajo.stanford.edu with TCP; Mon, 3 Nov 86 07:11:24 PST Received: from hplabsb by hplabs.HP.COM ; Mon, 3 Nov 86 07:11:16 pst Received: by hplabsb ; Mon, 3 Nov 86 07:11:17 pst Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 07:11:17 pst From: Ken Hodor <hodor%hplabsb@hplabs.hp.com> Message-Id: <8611031511.AA00725@hplabsb> To: lester@navajo.stanford.edu Subject: Accident

It looks like you did some very good detective work. I appreciate your article. Thank you for taking the time to investigate and write the article. I am also a cyclist and am very concerned about such accidents. I often find myself on the same kind of roads. Ken Hodor hplabs!hodor Article 2379 of net.bicycle: Path: navajo!labrea!decwrl!ucbvax!pelegri From: pelegri@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Eduardo Pelegri Llopart) Newsgroups: net.bicycle Subject: Rights and Responsabilites of Bicyclists Message-ID: <16282@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 31 Oct 86 18:02:34 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 24 I tried an "R" but did not work... so: > lester@navajo.ARPA > Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) > Newsgroups: net.bicycle > In-Reply-To: <1033@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> > Organization: University of California at Berkeley I completely agree with lester@navajo.ARPA. Maybe it is the time to start some mail campaign? (Or should we have done it a couple of weeks before, now being almost past elections?) In a related topic, I think that bicyclists should emphasize our equal status with other vehicles. This means *rights* and also *duties*. I get upset everytime I see a bicyclist going wrong way, riding in a sidewalk, or not stoping at a stop sign. This is *not* an issue of personal freedom: every time they do that, they reinforce the belief that bicycles are toys that need not be considered the equals of cars and, hence, they are endangering *ME*!! eduardo (pelegri@berkeley.edu) Article 2383 of net.bicycle: Path: navajo!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!braner From: braner@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (braner) Newsgroups: net.bicycle Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) Message-ID: <1336@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: 30 Oct 86 07:20:03 GMT References: <1033@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: braner@batcomputer.UUCP (braner) Distribution: net Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 26 Summary: Bikers can help educate drivers [] I bike and also drive, and I think that many bicycle riders, by their behavior, tend to reinforce drivers perception of bikers as irresponsible kids that should be banned from public roads. For example, bikers passing (or even turning left) through red lights without even slowing down! (I presume most readers of this net don't do things like that, but I see that often.) If we want drivers to obey the law (which gives us the right to the road) we have to do the same. And urge other bikers to do it too! As for bad drivers (e.g. ones with a trailer wider than the car and not realizing it...): by all means get a good rear-view mirror and don't trust anybody, look! (I use the "Mirrycle" or whatever it's called: it's mounted on the brake handle mount, and is convex). My other favorite safety tool: the "Belt Beacon" - a little gem that flashes a yellow light about once a second. It will go for 2 weeks CONTINUOUSLY on a 9V (alkaline) battery. It is visible for miles! I use it whenever it's dark, or semi-dark. - Moshe Braner (Can you believe I survived 3 years of URBAN commuting before I learnt about helmets, flashers, mirrors, etc?) From fischman@convex.UUCP Thu Oct 30 09:28:00 1986 Path: navajo!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!fischman From: fischman@convex.UUCP Newsgroups: net.bicycle Subject: Re: Dead Cyclists had it Coming? (long) Message-ID: <48800028@convex> Date: 30 Oct 86 17:28:00 GMT References: <1033@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> Lines: 51 Nf-ID: #R:navajo.STANFORD.EDU:1033:convex:48800028:000:2618 Nf-From: convex.UUCP!fischman Oct 30 11:28:00 1986 I've seen exactly the same type of reverse reporting happen. Same story. Four top-notch cyclists training for a race on a low traffic four lane road with shoulder. Driver bending over to pick up something on the floor at 100mph!!!!!!!!!Two rear most cyclists vaporized. The Texas DPS (our version of state police) gets on TV and says that it is legal but they don't recommend it. We get mad. Call the TV station. They interview me. I say "yes its true...when it comes to a contest between a car and a bicycle it's no contest...that's why motorists should be aware that cyclists have a right to the road too. They use my quote without the motorists should be aware part and change it to that's why cyclists should avoid busy highways and use extreme caution. We had a riot. These idiots turned it around and blamed the cyclists for being so careless as to drive on a shoulder in front of a 100 mph car!!!!! We considered burning the DPS and the TV station down but decided against it. This is why cyclists need to get into clubs so that we can defend our right to properly use the roads and get people used to seeing and respecting us. Another point. A man I work with at Convex, Bill Lippa, was run down from behind last week. He was riding safely, the person just didn't see him. If he hadn't bounced off the windshield, he'd be dead. As it is, he'll be messed up for a long, long time. The point is, a large number of really serious accidents involve getting run down from behind. People use a mirror!!! It may save your life. If you see someone coming, there is at least some chance that you can avoid it. It may not have saved Bill or the other two I mentioned but it might have. The other day, I was out with two other cyclists. It started to rain and the roads got very very slick (as only they can in Texas). A truck ran off the road in front of us. Didn't endanger us but provided warning as to the seriousness of the conditions. An impatient driver decides to pass us while we are crawling up a little hill. He guns it. Meanwhile I come over the top and see a car coming the other way (two lanes no shoulder). Little does he know that three bicycles and a car are coming right at him. I bailed out onto a gravel driveway. My friends didn't see the car passing us so they didn't know they were in danger (they didn't have mirrors). I yelled but they missed the driveway. They thought I had a flat or something. Well, everyone got real small and luckily they all fit on the road...but it was very close. I've got many stories about being saved by my mirror. Try it.

PDheader:1986-12-16 20:32:00-08:00 2f1a7e2d25e6ebc72cac06fd4d300d4c ∂16-Dec-86 2032 LES December BoD Meeting To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU

I've finished looking through all that stuff. Some things puzzle me, though. (1) It appears that Pam Endicott is still there. Pity; I thought she quit in a huff. (2) I see from several sources that Pelletier is still doing the Mayors Cup. I thought that you said he had left to do something else. (3) There seems to have been a hassle over the election of the atheletes representatives. I do not understand how this happened -- based on the election report, Connie Pareskevin gets the board seat. How-in-Hell did someone reach a different conclusion? (Of course, the election procedure could not be at fault because I wrote it). (4) The procedure given in Leibold's letter for moving legislative items between agendas is OK as long as the Board agrees, but he does not have the power to enforce this procedure if they disagree. His letter tries to take the position that "This is the way we will do it, by God." (5) As I mentioned, the Legislation Committee wasted the time of the Board by offering all of the crap proposed by Barbara Leonard. Such proposals should be reviewed by the Committee and put before the Board only if they like them. If the Chairman is confused about his responsibilities, the rest of you should straighten him out. (6) As usual, some moderately awful things seem to have been passed -- items 43, 46, and 47 caught my eye. The world won't come to an end, but I bet you will want to take them out next year. (7) I gather that item numbers that you drew a circle around in the "Consent Approval" section were passed. I hope that those you circled in the "Consent Denial" section were rejected. If not, there was an awful lot of bad stuff passed. (8) Regarding the Schedule of Fees items passed at the preceding Board meeting, why didn't the Legislation Committee propose to fix the gross mathematical stupidity in Item 13 (Officials Fees). Are you inviting the riders to make jokes? In article <5886@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >Harry Phinney writes: >>I don't think the TriSpoke wheels are legal for USCF races, as I believe >>a wheel must either have at least 16 spokes, or be "solid". Les, could >>you confirm/deny this? > >Beginning this week, wheels with less than 16 spokes may be used only >in time trial and pursuit events under USCF rules. > >Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: Computer Science Dept. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Stanford, CA 94305 If there's a rationalle, I'd like to hear it. I've seen perfectly legit (legit == normal 14-gauge spokes) 8-spoke wheels. Admitedly, not 27" or 700c, but still, strong enough to hold me bashing over potholes. Depends more on rim strength, but a smaller diameter rim is less likely to `chip'. So why 16 spokes? (I'm not necessarily complaining, just curious how 16 was picked as the magic number). You can have all this stuff back whenever you like -- I've made a copy of the legislation. Cheers, Les Also, does solid == 0 spokes => illegal? From labrea!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!cartan!ucbcad!ames!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!chinet!steinmetz!putnam Sun Dec 21 17:27:24 PST 1986 Article 35 of rec.bicycles: Path: navajo!labrea!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!cartan!ucbcad!ames!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!chinet!steinmetz!putnam >From: putnam@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (Jeff B Putnam) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Bicycle Helmet Laws Message-ID: <1044@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Date: 21 Dec 86 00:31:37 GMT Distribution: na Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady,NY Lines: 51 Keywords: bikes helmets laws The following is the interesting part of a bill submitted to the NY Assembly. Thought it might be of interest to the rec.bicycles types. I'm agin it (though i always wear a helmet). Interestingly, so is the local bike club - from whose newsletter this is copied. The bill is sponsered by Assemblyman Edward C. Sullivan. Mail may be directed to him at: Room 702 , Legislative Office Building, Albany, NY, 12248. AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to equipment of operators of bicycles. ... Section 1. Section twelve hundred thirty two of the vehicle and traffic law is amended by adding a new subdivision (c) to read as follows: (c) It shall be unlawful, on and after the effective date of this subdivision, for any person to propel or ride upon a bicycle unless such person wears a protective helmet of a type approved by the comissioner. Such helmet shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap and be reflectorized on both sides. The comissioner shall establish and maintain a list of approved helmets. The police authorities of a city, town or village may issue a permit exempting members of organizations sponsoring or conducting parades or other public exhibitions from the provision of this subdivision while such members are participating in such parades or other public exhibitions. ... MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION JUSTIFICATION: Today there is an increased awareness in health and fitness which has resulted in ore and more people taking up bicycle riding; it also means more bicycles are on our roads. "Unfortunately, the resulting increase in bicycle ridership has been accompanied by a parallel rise in bicycle accidents and fatalities. In New York State alone, the number of reported bicycle accidents has climed from 5,313 in 1970 to 8,859 in 1981, an increase of 67 percent." according to the Statewide Bicycle Safety Advisory Committee of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Reports have shown accidents increased in both frequency and severity. Bicycle riding is enjoyable but accidents can and do occur. There have been over one hundred bicycles who have died in accidents and of this amount 70 percent of those involved sustained head injuries. The purpose of this legislation is to help decrease the number of head injuries which might be sustained by bicycles involved in accidents. People should enjoy bicycle riding, but should also take precautions to insure their safety. ;-D on ( Well its only got one *really long* spoke... ) Pardo -- O -- jefu tell me all about -- UUCP: {rochester,edison}!steinmetz!putnam Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@GE-CRD Bicycle Helmet Laws The idea that riders should have freedom of choice to wear a helmet or not is very appealing. How can one argue with the principle that each person should be able to decide questions of personal safety for themselves? While the proposed New York law requiring approved helmets conflicts with Libertarian principles, I believe that it makes sense in the real world of 1987 U.S.A. I agree that individuals should be permitted to make informed decisions about all aspects of their lives as long as these decisions do not detrimentally affect the lives of others. This includes the right of the individual to decide to wear an unsafe helmet or no helmet or, more directly, to commit suicide. Unfortunately, the real world is filled with uninformed people whose mistakes must be paid for by others. As it turns out, the decision by many riders to go unprotected, whether they have informed themselves about this issue or not, forces others to pay for their foolishness through increased insurance costs and higher taxes. Consider the analogy of home construction standards. While the design and construction of houses _could_ be left strictly up to the builders, it is generally recognized that mandatory building codes benefit the homeowner, who is thus assured that the roof is unlikely to collapse and the furnace probably won't blow up. Enforced helmet safety standards have similar value. The recent reversal of government regulations requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets was based on the same "freedom" principle that is being advocated for cyclists. Indeed, there _is_ a sad lesson to be learned from the motocycle helmet experience. Beginning in 1967, the Federal government required the states to enact motorcycle helmet laws as a condition for obtaining Federal highway funds. During the next decade, motorcycle fatalities decreased by 50%. In 1976, bowing to pressure from a segment of the motorcycle lobby, Congress revoked the helmet requirement. In the next three years, 27 states followed suit and the national motorcycle death rate was up 40% by 1983. A recent study sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that "the use of a safety helmet is the single most critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head injury" from motorcyle accidents. There is still another sad lesson from the motorcycle experience. Based on limited studies of injured motocyclists who are admitted to hospitals for treatment, about 40% of them are uninsured [see Donald Trunkey's article on "Trauma" in Scientific American, August 1984]. In practice, most of them are treated at the expense of the general taxpayer. So the motorcyclists' "freedom of choice" not only inflicts an enormous cost in misery and lost productivity but the rest of us get to pick up much of the medical bill. Based on medical insurance claims from the U.S. Cycling Federation, the medical insurance coverage of racing cyclists seems to be similar to that of motorcyclists. The losses attributed to USCF riders who have no primary medical insurance have been grossly larger than their per capita share. This means that the insured riders have been subsidizing the uninsured. While "freedom of choice" is a fine abstract principle, other important principles intrude and interact in the real world. While a strict libertarian would say "Let them kill themselves if they choose," I am concerned about the number who are killing or maiming themselves without quite understanding the issues and who force others to share in their misfortune. Les Earnest Stanford University

PDheader:1987-01-22 12:37:00-08:00 6d6d7cccc6598a9443183536e96f4538 ∂22-Jan-87 1237 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU tidbits Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 87 12:37:01 PST Date: Thu 22 Jan 87 12:35:35-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: tidbits To: les@SU-AI.ARPA

Talked with Jerry Lace the other day because Beth was still ranting and raving over the alledged FIAC TC opening and Ernie's desires for that seat. Phil said there was no such thing. Called Jerry, and he said all he knew was that the president seat for the continental confederation was opening up. I think that is what Ernie is looking for. Got a real strange call from Pranke the other day. He had been talking to Beth and got wind of a few things. One is that Beth is now on the warpath to have Ernie replaced as TC Chairman and she doesn't want Phil to take the seat. So guess whose name is now floating around. Prankster tells me out of the blue that he would support me for TC Chairman. I told him that I didn't even know if I was returning to the Board so such talk was rather premature. I called Beth back because I gathered that she started this "rumor" of intentions. She said I would be the best candidate for the position. I told her that Phil would be a good choice because he would retain some semblance of prestige with the UCI as the USCF TC Chairman. For obvious reasons she didn't go for that. I then informed her that running against Ernie was a dangerous prospect. If I lost, I would never work a major race again in this country. I gather Beth is shifting political positions. I was wondering how long it would take her to realize that Mr. McDonald isn't as good of a friend as she thought. I watch Al repositioning himself after the commissaire course. With Beth getting a "B", the only person left to take care was me. At the worlds it was pretty apparent that he had already "stepped" on Beth and it was my turn--a job he did very handily. Now Beth is getting the clue as to what is happening. The Coors Men's Race is now under assignment by Al as the USPRO TC Chairman. She now sees that the crew is more proportionately becoming staffed by T-Town people. Hint, hint--the writting is on the wall. She is also miffed that Al is assigning himself as the chief commissaire of the Coors Classic. As a result, I suspect her trying to get me into the USCF TC chairman position is a move to realign herself with the USCF for officials assignments. Interesting situation. Talked to Kathy Volski about the candidates rumored to be running for president. She said of the three choices, Dottie would be hers. I spent ten minutes rationalizing that choice with her. I told her that I thought Dottie was clueless as to the state of the sport. After a while she said she would have to think about this. She doesn't like Richard because he's too slimey (corrupt). I told her that atleast Richard understands the sport while Dottie has no clue. Well so much for this week's gossip. -------

PDheader:1987-01-22 18:44:00-08:00 e0d71c0a1033dbc7e554985aeec27474 ∂22-Jan-87 1844 LES re: tidbits To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 22 Jan 87 12:35:35-PST.]

Your interesting summary reminds me that there are times when I do not feel underpriveleged by not being on the Board. I appeared as a witness at the appeal trials of Marquis vs. Winkel and Chilcott vs. Winkel today, after a mad dash from the Imagen annual stockholders meeting. I missed most of the testimony, but the lady judge was beating up on Glen pretty hard by the time I got there. If I were deciding, Winkel would win, but the wind seemed to be blowing the other way. What really worries me is that this kind of idiotic suit could become popular within the sport.

PDheader:1987-02-26 11:49:00-08:00 56371b77ee0886e425d92096c05167c2 ∂26-Feb-87 1149 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU Bike Lockers Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 87 11:48:59 PST Date: Thu 26 Feb 87 11:47:22-PST From: Lynn Gotelli <GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Bike Lockers To: ME@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU cc: Gotelli@Score.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12282186841.27.GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>

At the recent meeting I attended on the design development of the Math Corner Courtyard I was asked how many people there are presently using the bike lockers? Since the area where the lockers are located will be under construction Facilities Project Management would like to remove the lockers during construction and would like to have a feel for how many users this would effect. Do either of you have any suggestions where the bike lockers could be relocated for approximately 60 days (mid August - mid October) during the construction project? I thought I saw a message on my screen today indicating that mail from you had arrived, but when I looked in my mailbox there was nothing from you. I suspect that you may have sent me something in the "send" mode instead of regular mail. When that happens, it goes on my screen immediately if I am logged in, but may be quickly overwritten by something else before I get a chance to see it, as seems to have happened today. By the way, I got a call from David Lockwood (the rider who was involved in the Mountain View Criterium fatality) a little while ago. He said that he has been served with notice of a suit. The City of Mountain View was also named, but no one else. He has no funds but hopes that MV will defend him out of self-interest. This is not unexpected, but disgusting nonetheless. I plan to call Andy Bohlmann on Tuesday to warn him that the USCF might be added to the suit -- in fact, I am surprised that the plaintiff's lawyer overlooked this obvious target. Not to mention me. Cheers, Les Thank you, Lynn P.S. Marty I will put a copy of the latest plans in your office. -------

PDheader:1987-03-12 15:28:00-08:00 f8623b053d15eb433bbd878a6d1eb05e ∂12-Mar-87 1528 LES re: cycling and eye protection To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU CC: su-market@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

I find sunglasses to be a nuisance in that they must be cleaned frequently, but I recognize that many people find full sunlight uncomfortable. Perhaps my relative immunity to this problem derives from an incident many years ago when I watched an atomic airburst with no eye protection. I lost my vision for several hours, but it gradually came back. Not a recommended procedure, however. Speaking of Eddy B., I was chief referee for a bicycle road race race Saturday-before-last near Pine Flat Dam (in the Sierra foothils, 30 miles East of Fresno) and spent most of the day in a car with Eddy B. driving. The hard part was staying ahead of a pack of about 50 riders through a twisting mountainous descent, inasmuch as cyclists can negotiate such roads at higher speed than a car can. Eddy kept the car on two wheels most of the time and got away with it, most likely because of his cycling training. I had white knuckles. Les

PDheader:1987-03-12 16:38:00-08:00 04b908239ea4862106d8ed538a8b553f ∂12-Mar-87 1638 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: cycling and eye protection Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 87 16:37:40 PST Date: Thu 12 Mar 87 16:34:35-PST From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: cycling and eye protection To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 12 Mar 87 15:28:00-PST Message-ID: <12285909145.12.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>

Actually, there is something worse than being a passenger in a car driven by a professional cycling coach: That is driving a motorcycle in front or near a car being driven by a professional cycling coach. I had several ``White Everything'' experience in the Coors '85 when Koechli decided he wanted to get by. A lot of the foreign coaches decided the way to signal the right of way was to tap the motorcycle from behind with their bumpers. A little known fact from that Coors is that Levis-Raleigh lost the team title to Red Zinger because in the Sonoma to Sacramento stage their van decided to run a cyclist of the road, however his centerstand ran into their tire causing them a blow out (his centerstand fell off, but unbelievably he didn't crash). In the meantime 4 Levi-Raleigh's had flat tires leading to a 20-25 due to the van getting a new tire. -Ilan -------

PDheader:1987-03-12 17:15:00-08:00 d9ac6e60dffafed05593fea1621ba9f9 ∂12-Mar-87 1715 LES re: cycling and eye protection To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 12 Mar 87 16:34:35-PST.]

Interesting. I was a Coors/Red Zinger race official from 1978 through '84, but didn't see such behavior during that period. I did see it in the only pro race that I have worked, namely the '84 "Tour of America" from Virginia Beach to Washington DC. Each team was provided a new Peugeot sedan, which they proceeded to destroy with such games as "bang the fenders." There was also flagrant cheating, which the chief commissaire (French) chose to ignore. Several of the coaches there were arrogant beyond belief. I came very close to punching out one of them who apparently believed his press clippings, but I settled for harassing him. That experience convinced me that if we are to develop the professional part of the sport in this country, we must ensure that we do not import the European pro cycling culture with it -- it is decadent beyond belief. Les

PDheader:1987-03-12 20:12:00-08:00 0c1b672f2415d87118160bc7220dc23d ∂12-Mar-87 2012 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU Technical Commission meeting Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 87 20:11:59 PST Date: Thu 12 Mar 87 20:10:49-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Technical Commission meeting To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12285948509.11.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

Had a very busy weekend in Chicago. The Exec Comm was a waste. Phil is being very disruptive and costly. He is dragging his feet trying I think to prevent the EC from doing anything. I don't think this is gaining him any popularit votes. The EC only got thru about 1/2 of its agenda. The Technical Commission faired much better. Ernie for all his other attributes does know how to run a meeting. Sans myself and Rich Weiss, the rest, meaning dottie, rich de garmo, ernie, and susan bookspan chose the officials for nationals and other events. I am rather unhappy with the selections. It is very T-town and NJ based. What could we expect anyways... I hope that Xavier Louy opts to have me at the Tour de l'Avenir in lieu of the Tour de France. I was assigned to CR at the Natz RR, TT, and Pan Am trials. This seriously conflicts with the Tour dates. However, inspite of Ernie's claims to have mostly Colorado officials at the Natz in Denver, he wants 4 other out of staters aside from myself there. Do you know Ray Florman? I told Yvonne that I would support her if she pressed Ernie for less foriegners and more in staters. I don't know if I'll have a chance to drop by before I go to Texas next week. I find that I have only Wednesday free to collect myself after finals and papers and pack my offficiating bag for another lovely round dealing with Mr. MacDonald. I'm going to pack a dust brush to wipe the foot prints off my scalp and some insect repellant. I was reading the BBoard. Who is the cycling expert on the bboard? Hopefully, I'll see when I get back from Armadillo land. -------

PDheader:1987-03-13 13:39:00-08:00 0855dd1b1eb20a0cfe55d083f83e67f4 ∂13-Mar-87 1339 LES re: Technical Commission meeting To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 12 Mar 87 20:10:49-PST.]

Interesting. I can believe that Phil is being an obstructionist. With that Executive Committee, obstruction could be interpreted as a positive act! Sorry, I don't know Ray Florman. I think that at most two foreigners should be imported for natz - e.g. chief ref and chief judge. Regarding SU-bboards, are you referring to Ilan Vardi's remarks? He is a mathematician and I don't actually know him, but he says that he was a motorcycle marshall for the Coors during '85 & '86. Andy Bohlmann called yesterday to say that John Howard has applied for an amateur license again. Andy wants a copy of my 1984 letter declaring Howard to be non-amateur. I know that I sent him one at the time, but they can't seem to find it. I'll do an attic search this weekend. Don't forget to pack your six-shooter for the Texas trip! Cheers, Les

PDheader:1987-03-13 13:54:00-08:00 99800b76aec3decfc9c8c2ec01a0843e ∂13-Mar-87 1354 LES re: cycling and eye protection To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 12 Mar 87 18:25:21-PST.]

Yes, the Boulder incident sounded rather hairy. It was similar in some ways to a 1980 incident at the same place. I was the lead commaissaire, just behind a five-man break coming into Boulder when a confused policeman directed all of us off the course. It took us several blocks before we figured out that we were not on the course and about two minutes were lost in getting back. Time adjustments were made by the commissaires to compensate for this blunder, but the Colombians then jumped to the conclusion that they were being cheated somehow. This lead to a massive sit-down strike just before the start of the finale, in North Boulder Park. By the time the riders had been talked into racing, there were effectively just two teams racing -- the gringos and the latinos, the latter including Colombia, Mexico, Italy, and another Latin American team that I don't remember. That race was a bloodbath. Les

PDheader:1987-03-15 19:22:00-08:00 1ea893c62ad030646b89a1a3300b8bbe ∂15-Mar-87 1922 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU IIan Vardi Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 87 19:22:50 PST Date: Sun 15 Mar 87 19:21:38-PST From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: IIan Vardi To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12286725985.14.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

Now that you say he is a mathematician, I remember him....NERD, if I recall correctly. I remember him being a nuisance of a motorcycle official and giving rides to unauthorized people during several road stages. Not what I the best of experts in cycling as he has seemed to claim place on the BBoard. ------- From labrea!Shasta!palmer Sat Mar 21 14:35:00 PST 1987 Article 382 of rec.bicycles: Path: navajo!labrea!Shasta!palmer >From: palmer@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Bill Palmer) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: More on spinning Message-ID: <1422@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 21 Mar 87 07:38:04 GMT References: <1834@vax3.tc.fluke.COM> <74600020@convex> Reply-To: palmer@Shasta.UUCP (Bill Palmer) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 22 >From: fischman@convex.UUCP >Isn't the gear limit for juniors a stupid idea? I mean really. Does it >prevent injury or is it just stupid. Everyone is different. Every race is >different. The Sitting Bull Falls race in Carlsbad NM is a good example. >About 25 miles are up and then 25 miles down. I saw a junior loose the >race because after he beat everyone up the mountain, all he had for the trip >down was a 52 x 15. What is the actual rule? and what is the real reason? >Is it for all junior events, road and track or just track? I know it applies in road events. It might be a non-issue in track events; I thought trackies rarely used anything bigger than 94" or so anyway. Greg Lemond destroyed the field in the Nevada City Classic (not exactly flat, about 10,000' in 39 miles) and did quite well in the Coors as a junior. I can't think of any really good reasons why a junior who could easily hold his own with the I's and II's shouldn't be able to get his district rep to make him a senior II before actually coming of age. A physician could provide a qualified opinion on whether the rider was at any greater risk of injury (e.g. still growing). I'm not sure that the rider should be allowed in junior races after "turning pro", but I could go either way on that. [Sent to rec.bicycle 3/21/87] From: fischman@convex.UUCP >Isn't the gear limit for juniors a stupid idea? As the author of the existing USCF gear limit rule, I can report that it is a political compromise. There appears to be no scientific evidence supporting this scheme, but there are a number of coaches who believe in it. The theory behind gear limits is that they help young riders to develop better cycling skills by learning to spin first, before takong on large better cycling skills by learning to spin first, before taking on large gears. Up until 1979, gear limits were tied strictly to the rider's age, which put younger riders at a disadvantage when they competed above their age class. It appeared to me that this rule was unfair and I managed to get it changed by the USCF Board of Directors by calling attention to a very unpopular decision that I had to make. I was the chief referee of the Butterfly Criterium at Pacific Grove, CA when Greg Lemond, then a Junior, placed second in the Senior event. From observation of pedal cadences, it appeared that Greg was not using Junior gears, so immediately after the race I told him to submit his bike for a rollout test. Greg said, "Never mind -- I have illegal gears." Even though I thought the rule was wrong, I could not in good conscience ignore the violation. The subsequent announcement of Lemond's disqualification led to a near-riot among the spectators and I went home feeling rather bad about the incident. Knowing that the USCF Board would meet a week and a half later, I immediately drafted a proposed rule change that tied gear limits to the age class of the _race_ (so that Juniors competing in Senior events would have no gear limits) and mailed it to the Chairman of the Legislation Committee together with a description of the incident. The Board adopted this rule change and made it effective 60 days later. I later was elected to the USCF Board and became Chairman of the Legislation Committee. Upon seeking medical or other scientific support for the gear limit regulations, I discovered that there was none. I then proposed that the gear limits be abolished, but met with very strong opposition from the national coaching staff. Knowing that it would be impossible to abolish these rules without their support (and recognizing that they could be right, even though they couldn't prove it ), I backed off. Thus, the gear limits continue to be tied to the racing age of the oldest riders in any given race. (Incidentally, when the age classes were reorganized several years ago, I fiddled the gear limit numbers using mathematical interpolation and a "twist of the wrist." Not a single number was questioned by the Board, even though they were based on little more than my imagination!) From: palmer@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Bill Palmer) >Greg Lemond destroyed the field in the Nevada City Classic (not exactly >flat, about 10,000' in 39 miles) and did quite well in the Coors as a junior. Gear limits do not have much effect on the Nevada City race because the riders climb in a relatively low gear for about half of the course and coast in a tucked position for most of the other half. Also, the gear limit rule was changed as described above before Lemond's last appearance as a Junior at Nevada City. (I was chief referee there throughout that period.) Lemond also was not subjected to gear limitations in his Junior appearance at the Coors (then called "Red Zinger") -- I can confirm this because I was a Commissaire at that event.

PDheader:1987-03-22 12:55:00-08:00 fa38beab440de382a25a6431d8ffa910 ∂22-Mar-87 1255 LES re: more on spinning To: whp4@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun 22 Mar 87 11:48:23-PST.]

Though Lemond was not held back by gear limits in his first appearance at the Zinger and showed enormous talent, he was done in by inexperience. On two of the occasions when he broke away from the field, he subsequently looked back, got his front wheel cockeyed, and crashed. The second time was in the criterium finale when he was still within striking distance of winning the race. As a result of the crash, he was entitled to a free lap, but instead he got up and continued, which put him out of contention. The collegiate national championships were slated to be held at Stanford on the May 23 weekend, but I heard that they may move to the Fall. I don't know when the Western collegiate events will be held here. Les

PDheader:1987-04-16 11:24:00-07:00 212d3ae7756bc617924d5d9bc3086fe0 ∂16-Apr-87 1124 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU BOD Nominations Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 87 11:22:28 PDT Date: Thu 16 Apr 87 11:21:20-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: BOD Nominations To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12295016237.10.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

Did you get the nomination in on time? Five clubs in the area did not know where the nomination form was. So I used the five licensees approach to the matter. The nomination forms were put in a rather large mailing of things most clubs discard. Will try to drop in next week with the BOD minutes and other mailings. Talked to Phil last night. I think he's trying to feel the water for re-running for presidency. Also Lightbulb doesn't respond to telephone calls concerning an upcoming legislation meeting. I think by next week we will have to bypass him. Phil was suggesting having the meeting out on this coast. I suggested your hot tub. I am going up to Nevada City to discuss the race with the primary organizers. This group seems like a reasonable lot. They are locals who have been supporting the other flaky promoter over the years. -------

PDheader:1987-04-16 12:27:00-07:00 4e0ec1d427ff1c15bbfbdd15436bd332 ∂16-Apr-87 1227 LES re: BOD Nominations To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 16 Apr 87 11:21:20-PDT.]

Yes, after some scrambling the Stanford club found their nomination form and we got it mailed yesterday. Incidentally, an alternative would have been to simply have a club officer sign a letter nominating you. For that matter, a given club may nominate any number of candidates up to the number to be elected from a given section, despite instructions to the contrary that used to appear on the form. I too heard from Phil recently and have also been trying to reach Lightbulb to find out about the prospective meeting. If it is going to happen, it should be scheduled soon. From my standpoint, in the interest of avoiding conflicting officiating commitments, the weekends of May 16-17, 23-25, or 30-31 would be good. Note that the middle one is a three-day weekend because of Memorial Day. I confirmed to Phil that we would be happy to put up some visitors, having at least two available bedrooms and two couches, one of which converts to a bed. I helped Manuel do the Tour of Marin road race on Saturday, forcing me to get up at 5:30am. (Shudder; never again). It was not a total disaster, but there were some problems. For one, there were not enough registration people, which caused a 40 minute delay in the start while everyone shivered in the fog. The various groups arrived asynchronously at the finish line and the only way to identify them was by the promoter-supplied numbers, which were supposed to be assigned in blocks but weren't. This led inevitably to some blunders in results. (Sigh.) Did Phil disclose his plot to give riders a direct vote in the election of directors? It is fairly cute and even legal, I believe. The idea is to put this scheme in a Bylaw amendment tied to an existing loophole in the Constitution (III.3.1), which says "The representation of other types of members shall be as provided in the Bylaws." In the House of Delegates, Bylaws can be amended by a simple majority, which would give this proposal a reasonable chance of passing. Of course, it would have to be proposed by a club rather than by the Legislation Committee for political reasons, but that can be arranged.

PDheader:1987-04-16 13:09:00-07:00 57715e24bff1477ceb51c45fe402cd0d ∂16-Apr-87 1309 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU re: BOD Nominations Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 87 13:09:27 PDT Date: Thu 16 Apr 87 13:08:24-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: BOD Nominations To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 16 Apr 87 12:27:00-PDT Message-ID: <12295035726.23.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

For my schedule, the weekend of the 9-10 would be best. Memorial weekend I am suppose to waste Federation money on being the TC representative at the Crit Natz in Dayton. Also on the 17th I was going to have an advanced officials seminar. -------

PDheader:1987-04-16 13:18:00-07:00 50b3ce45f99bb8f514f08ea7f06564ab ∂16-Apr-87 1318 LES re: BOD Nominations To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu 16 Apr 87 13:08:24-PDT.]

I foolishly agreed to do the Corporate Cup on May 9, which will be an all-day scramble with 1000 to 2000 participants. I guess that I will earn my $20 fee. They should be able to afford that, given that their budget will run about $400,000. I could probably get out of this if necessary, however. Another risk in doing it that early is that you may not have received all the club proposals by then, given mail delays to Colorado Springs and other fumbling.

PDheader:1987-04-20 22:18:00-07:00 bc9116437c7eb87115bb99bdad6d9236 ∂20-Apr-87 2218 LES re: A question about bicycle helmets To: SELIGMAN@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon 20 Apr 87 21:11:26-PDT.]

I have heard good things about the Giro, though I haven't tried it myself. As I recall it is noticeably lighter than the V-1 Pro (which I use) and older helmets. Meeting ANSI Standard Z90.4 means that it provides quite good protection. If it met the Snell Memorial Standard it would be slightly better, but I *would* trust my noggin in it anyway. For what it is worth, I have drop-tested four helmets so far, from heights of about five feet, with my head inside. The first two were old-style leather helmets and I went into shock both times. The last two have been V-1 Pros and I walked away both times with no more than a sore neck. My first V-1 Pro was so badly mashed that it had to be retired, however. pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo Les

PDheader:1987-04-25 16:49:00-07:00 a95afd60646cd3310dba09f478da5ece ∂25-Apr-87 1649 LES Getting together To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU Sorry I missed you. I was here before and after 1:30 on Wednesday, which

is when I thought you were coming. Hope you have a good time in Cincinnati. Given that the Legislation Committee apparently will not meet until late on May 9, might you be interested in helping supervise the Corporate Cup? My plan is to leave the conduct and team timing in the hands of the promoter's organization and have the race officials simply observe and supervise. I am doing my best to get it organized correctly, but I recognize that there is a fairly high probability that the results will be disasterously slow in coming (maybe never!), so I wish to keep responsibilities clearly separated. Of course, this will be a day-long job at below-minimum wage, so the only reason that I see to get involved is to closely observe a new and potentially important kind of event. BTW, this event points up an inequity in the officials' fees. Though the event has a budget on the order of $400,000, the nonexistent prize list means that the officials get minimum wage. It appears to me that officials' fees should be tied to a "race value," which is the greater of: (1) the sum of the prize lists and (2) the sum of the entry fees. In this case, the latter would result in maxi-fees. This scheme would have the side benefit of causing the officials to pay closer attention to the number of registrants.

PDheader:1987-04-28 18:40:00-07:00 d987dea41c44bd5a50a94c60e043f424 ∂28-Apr-87 1840 LES re: The Sentence for Negligence To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

I agree with Mary Holstage -- Carol Miller's drivers license should have been suspended for a substantial period. In fact, she should have been required to ride a bicycle for about one year, to gain insight. The courtroom forgiveness of Miller shown by the daughter of two of the victims may have been helped along by the fact that she will receive periodic payments of an undisclosed amount for the rest of her life from the insurance company. I expect that the Fortino family's insurance rates may increase as a result of their having loaned Miller a car when hers broke down. The REAL villains in this case were identified in public statements by Miller's lawyer: they are unnamed (and probably mythical) bicycle clubs who sought punishment for his client. Ilan Vardi's remark about the woman who was killed in the Mountain View bike race last year gives me a little tingle -- I was the chief refereee of that event. From all available evidence, she knew that a race was in progress, was repeatly warned by police and others not to walk across the street at that moment, had a perfect view of the oncoming cyclists, and still walked directly into their path. A contributing factor appeared to be that she was drunk as a skunk, even though she was on her way to work at 9:00am. Nevertheless, her family is suing and will probably collect under our grossly perverted legal system. The 16 spoke rule was not my proposal -- in fact, I argued against it. Two theories were offered: (1) that fewer spokes meant insubstantial construction, which endangered other riders in massed start events, (2) that trispoke wheels and their like would permit arms or other appendages to go through them in a crash, causing more serious injuries. Solid wheels and other wheels with less than 16 spokes are permitted only in time trial and pursuit events. Les

PDheader:1987-04-29 11:14:00-07:00 2fd15ec247ff5ced0343f94f724a7c91 ∂29-Apr-87 1114 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU meeting Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 87 11:14:04 PDT Date: Wed 29 Apr 87 11:12:49-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: meeting To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12298422557.15.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

Been extremely busy as in running around everywhere with too much to do, but then again that I guess is what MBAs are suppose to be doing. I think I like being a chemist. Need to connect on two matters--election campaign strategies and collegiate race this weekend. Today I might be able to meet this afternoon with you depending on your schedule or perhaps on Friday. I understand from Tim that you will be able to work Saturday's collegiate events out on the coast. I hope so....we will be short handed. In as far as the Corporate Cup...you mean I can't get the UCI standard treatment...152 sfr per day; room with single bed and private bath; two meals a day consisting of cold cut/or cheese sandwich, two pieces of fruit, and a cold drink; or a limo to meet me at the airport full of a bevy of underaged teen age girls (Phil Liggett style)????? All that aside, I'd be interested in hearing more about what you got in line in as far as a set up. Will we have access to a computer? What kind of staff does she have? On the subject of campaigns, I am going to the office tommorrow to attend a meeting with Voy on the subject of dope(s)...plenty of the latter in our sport. Do you want to request a mailing list? Talked to Voxland this morning. He says that Beth will be fighting off Dean Crandall for a seat on the Board. Down south, Brad Zimmerman and Bob Ross are the two candidates. None from Arizona and Bradley is the sole candidate from up North. This is the exact set-up I was hoping for. Both candidates down south are weak and we can prey upon extra votes from down there. I think we can sew up San Diego with Kirkbride, Reed, and Goodloe's help. Arizona may be possible too. I believe there may be upwards of 80 votes that can be obtained. In Colorado, I think that finding excess votes may be difficult...may be no more than 5-10 votes at best. We might be able to extract 10-20 votes out of the North. I did a rough draw of votes that we can sew up for you in NorCal from the big voting clubs. We can reliably clear you over the 100 vote threshold. Will give you a call later to see what your schedule is. -------

PDheader:1987-04-29 18:07:00-07:00 52fa2e80f1c1ef74de2315d94acc03aa ∂29-Apr-87 1807 LES re: Answers to cycling questions To: DELANEY@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 29 Apr 87 17:03:38 PDT.]

Ilan's got it right. If you see a cyclist riding the white line instead of the shoulder, it is likely to be because the shoulder is unridable. Use your brakes instead of your horn. When a car honks at me, my autonomic nervous system somehow causes my hand to fly up with the middle finger extended. I trust that John Delaney can interpret that. Art ------ Les Earnest Arrogant Cyclist

PDheader:1987-04-29 18:26:00-07:00 06cfb2965fe1410da068a920c00e8a83 ∂29-Apr-87 1826 LES re: Sorry, a confusion about HIGHWAY and FREEWAY. To: LEEY@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed 29 Apr 87 15:44:39-PDT.]

Yi-Ching Lee said: > From what I heard on TV, those four cyclist were hit on a HIGHWAY where > the speed limit was 55. How did they get there in the first place? When Ilan pointed out that the cyclists every right to ride there, he responded: > I was wrong. I got confused about HIGHWAY and FREEWAY. Sorry. Yi-Ching Lee apparently is not aware that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to right on many freeways, mostly in rural areas. Locally, the only freeways that I know of where cycling is permitted is a short stretch of 280 above the Half Moon Bay turnoff and Highway 101 south of Gilroy. In Oregon, nearly all freeways are open to cyclists. I have ridden on thousands of miles of freeways throughout the West. From a safety standpoint, I would take _any_ freeway in preference to El Camino Real. I wish that 280 was open to cyclists all the way to San Francisco. Some day. You say: > I think the point scheme is too top-heavy. Les Earnest I find this remark puzzling. If you compare various point sums with the previous "top three in three or top six in six" rule, you will find that they are essentially identical except that the points scheme does not have a weird break between third and fourth place, as the previous rule does.

PDheader:1987-04-30 12:54:00-07:00 845f17255f6914aa63d1a4c4cced4194 ∂30-Apr-87 1254 LES Bicycle Helmets To: su-market@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

Having ridden a bicycle for some 52 years, I have tested lots of equipment, including four helmets that I drop-tested from a height of five feet. Unfortunately, my head was inside on each occasion. The first two were old-style leather helmets and I went into shock both times. The last two have been Bell V-1 Pros and I walked away both times with no more than a sore neck. My first V-1 Pro was so badly mashed that it had to be retired, however. Be sure that your helmet meets either the ANSI Z90.4 standard or (like the Bells and others) the slightly more stringent Snell Standard. Another good bike shop to consider, especially for top-line equipment, is Wheelsmith. They recently moved to more spacious quarters on Hamilton Street in Palo Alto. They are not cheap, but they are tops in integrity. It appears to me that there is a misunderstanding of some sort here. I assume that you are talking about the 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points rule for first through sixth place, with 15 points needed to upgrade. Les

PDheader:1987-04-30 16:13:00-07:00 363ca72dc7222f9d342426a1f90c0fa6 ∂30-Apr-87 1613 LES The Best Bike Defense is an Offense To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

The key to survival in biking is to ride defensively but not wimpishly. Wear bright clothing and a good helmet (ANSI Z90.4 or better), use bright lights at night, use a helmet mirror to keep track of what is going on behind you, and respond to rude behavior appropriately within practical limitations. If the only safe place to ride is in the rightmost car lane, take it and ignore the bleepers behind you. I agree with Stefan Sharkansky that flipping off motorists is not always appropriate -- sometimes more direct action is called for. When motorists are aggressively rude to me in an urban setting, I sometimes take advantage of those great equalizers called stoplights by sprinting up on the driver's side of the car, opening the door, and inviting the driver to discuss the issues. It is remarkable how much less aggressive most of these folks are in a face-to-face discussion. On something over five occasions, I have chased down wrong-doers with my bike and managed to get them arrested. The last such incident was after a fellow in a pickup truck made an unprovoked and deliberate hit-and-run attack. He hit my bike but missed my leg by a fraction of an inch. After an eight-block chase, partly on foot after my crumpled wheel collapsed, I caught the S.o.B. and had him arrested. I do not wish to claim immunity from injury in cycling, but in 52 years on the road, the only damage to my body has been self-inflicted or caused by other cyclists (while racing). While wimps like Harinder may enjoy riding a stationary bicycle or sticking to bike paths, the real adventure and scenic grandeur is on the open road. It is unfortunate that it must be shared with cars, but with adequate precautions biking has a very high pleasure/danger ratio. Les Earnest

PDheader:1987-05-01 12:52:00-07:00 f3c4d33e4047ac4582d16dd359b40024 ∂01-May-87 1252 @Score.Stanford.EDU:bradley@portia.Stanford.EDU Russell Mead - bad news Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 May 87 12:49:24 PDT Received: from portia.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 1 May 87 12:45:25-PDT Received: by portia.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 1 May 87 12:48:13 PDT Date: 1 May 1987 1248-PDT (Friday) From: J. Bradley Chen <bradley@portia.Stanford.EDU> To: r.racer@lear.Stanford.EDU, mike@portia.Stanford.EDU,

ilan@score.Stanford.EDU, les@score.Stanford.EDU Cc: bchen@sushi.Stanford.EDU Subject: Russell Mead - bad news He broke his collarbone. It looks to me like he broke it after he wrote the letter because the bad news is in a ps and his penmanship was much worse. He's at the OTC now - 1776 E. Boulder Colorodo Springs 80909. He just got back from a 3 day racing trip in Trinidad. He said he was riding on a grass track and there were lots of fast dudes and he and Gordon got their buts kicked. Russell and Gordon are the only official kilo guys on the team. Russell said "Gordon's still an asshole but I have to deal with him..." Does anybody have a phone# for the OTC? brad ps sorry if you get this twice. I was fighting with the mailer.

PDheader:1987-05-01 22:22:00-07:00 86b81d09d799632fa6026518155af2da ∂01-May-87 2222 LES Re: The Best Bike Defense is an Offense To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

In a message sent Thu 30 Apr 87 19:55:27-PDT, Harinder Singh responded to my earlier insult by saying: > Sorry, Les, > > To extend your definition of wimpishness, riding a bicycle *at > all* is to be a wimp (your usage, not mine). Real Men ride Harleys.

PDheader:1987-05-04 18:33:00-07:00 d6ca86c2cd9f789503ef4b749dd4275b ∂04-May-87 1833 LES re: wheat thins To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon 4 May 87 18:02:57-PDT.]

Katrin made a pit stop because one of her shifters was stuck. It was pried loose and she reentered, but Tom Simonson reported the incident to me and I agreed that she could have a free lap only if something was broken. We inspected the bike after the race and determined that the nothing was broken but that the shifter had been improperly assembled. She said that it was done by the manufacturer. Consequently, Katrin was declared lapped and out of the race at the point where she entered the pit. [She both took a prime after the pit stop and placed third at the finish. Her finish placing was properly deleted but the prime list was not fixed and Len Pettyjohn quietly made off with the prime. Grumble!] Peggy Maas won the women's criterium and Alan McCormick won the men's. Shaun Wallace won the one-lap time trial by 1/1000 second over Leonard Nitz. I just learned that another unexpected winner was our #2 son, Ian. It seems that Joan filled out a card for him for a drawing put on by KFOG radio in conjunction with the race and he won a new Renault automobile! Curious. I never believed in drawings.

PDheader:1987-05-12 11:42:00-07:00 1994967dc7be7fa366d668471fd5f389 ∂12-May-87 1142 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU tommorrow's schedule Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 May 87 11:42:53 PDT Date: Tue 12 May 87 11:37:02-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: tommorrow's schedule To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12301834837.147.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

What's your afternoon look like tommorrow or Thursday? I was going to put the 321 clubs up on a spreadsheet so we could take a look at where our attentions should be concentrated upon. Missed French this morning because I was on the telephone from 7:30 to 11:00. Talked to Beth first off. She's packing to go to the Milk Race. The Madison rule request from as we thought Mr. MacDonald. It needed to have a bell being rung prior to the last lap rather than a gun shot. Talked to Andy at the office next. It seems he's getting saddled with endless more duties. Addressed the problems with upcoming nationals. Beth addressed to me some crucial items about nationals that I was also worried about--- namely the TC, Championship committee, and competition committee haven't been doing there jobs--thus I take the fall once competition starts for their negligence. Consequencely, I addressed this to Andy and then spent another 80 minutes with Ernie nailing him to the wall for his past 6 months of incompetence. I pointed out to him that his and the other committee's negligence in this matter means that I will take the fall for the misconduct. I additionally pointed out that I don't intend to let that happen. I think the rest of Ernie's day was spoiled. He tried to wiggle out of things in his usual manner, but I never let him escape the issues of incompetence. I told Beth about Heidi's "Beth, Tom, and Kathy" rule proposal. Her response was "that's not legal, and someone will sue!" I wonder who. I had talked to Heidi in Texas about official's assignments and I thought she understood that Ernie's assignments were political including her's. That's why I proposed the revise I did to make it the "Beth, Tom, Kathy, Heidi, Clair, etc" rule. As for me, if I make as far as the Board for next year and the TC again, I intend to withdraw my name from eligiblity for TC assignment such that I can help fix this official's selection process. I figure with whatever I do for work that I'll have only time for the foriegn races I get into and perhaps the Coors or any other Pro races Al sees fit to include me in on. I really don't think that the legislation committee is the appropriate forum for Heidi and Rich to take out their vendettas. But what else is new... Hope to see you tommorrow or the next day. -------

PDheader:1987-05-20 15:47:00-07:00 737141b703c01fb74036bba986c6aa0b ∂20-May-87 1547 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU voting Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 May 87 15:47:17 PDT Date: Wed 20 May 87 15:46:32-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: voting To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <12303977410.149.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

Have talked to Pete Gilbert for Valley Spokesman vote for you and confirmed with Tim Kemp the Los Gatos vote and also to Mike Blaauw for the SJBC split vote. Have a different request for you... The business plan that we are composing on the scanner software is underway. We need to list the personnel for the company and I would like to list you as a board member of the company. Of course this is fictional, but you will get fictional stock in the firm too. To do this I would need a short synopsis of your background. Is this possible? ------- a220 1209 26 May 87 AM-BRF--Bicycle Thieves,0109 Milan Lends 500 Bicycles but Most Disappear MILAN, Italy (AP) - Officials in Milan loaned 500 yellow bicycles to people for a day in an effort to reduce auto traffic, but the experiment worked too well. Almost none of the bicycles was returned. The bicycles were loaned without requiring security deposits over the weekend as part of an experiment that was supposed to last a month. ''You don't tie them up and you don't steal them,'' was one of the slogans advertising the idea in the northern Italian city. ''Maybe it's ironic, but it's clear that the communal bicycle has had a great success,'' Milan's traffic commissioner, Attilio Schemm. AP-NY-05-26-87 1456EDT ********** I will search for yet another version.

PDheader:1987-05-26 21:35:00-07:00 284074e8caefd681d6135bbbeecaf266 ∂26-May-87 2135 LES re: LETTER WRITING To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue 26 May 87 16:23:53-PDT.]

Given that those nationals were a joke, I hope that serious consideration is given to flushing them. In my prejudiced view think they should never have been started. Finally got the last of my letters into the mail this morning. Looks like we both screwed up. I managed to time the call to Jim Kirstein about right -- SGW was holding a board meeting there. They promised to give us their votes, half and half. I haven't reached Pen. Velo yet but hope to get through tonight. I discovered, to my surprise, that the forms for Davis and Sausalito were not in the packet that I got from Lee, so I have no contacts there. Do you know anyone? I'm willing to do the calls. I notice that "CVC" has 5 votes but isn't on your "hit list." If that is Castro Valley, I have phone numbers and can chase them. Same for Devil Mountain with 3 votes.

PDheader:1987-05-27 10:52:00-07:00 15895adc59b3b0aff4ed4f840b90a444 ∂27-May-87 1052 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU re: LETTER WRITING Received: from GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 May 87 10:50:17 PDT Date: Wed 27 May 87 10:49:21-PDT From: Thomas Y. Nee <87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: LETTER WRITING To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 26 May 87 21:35:00-PDT Message-ID: <12305758316.155.87.NEE@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU>

I believe that CVC was on that list on the top. If SGW is splitting their 6 votes, then we should get CVC to split their votes. Davis BC is a chap named Ken Evans; You'll need to get a number from either Snyder or Lightbulb. Sausalito is Tony Tom at the Bike Odyssey in Sausalito. -------

PDheader:1987-05-27 12:15:00-07:00 c28229f0a631e49651b0889306fb182a ∂27-May-87 1215 LES re: LETTER WRITING To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed 27 May 87 10:49:21-PDT.]

I got to Fallis of Pen. Velo a bit late -- they had already mailed in their ballot. He said that they gave "the great majority" of their votes to us. In other words, they gave a few to somebody else. I talked to Tony Tom just now. He has not seen the ballot yet. He was vaguely positive but noncommittal about how they would vote. I left a message on Lightbulb's recorder asking for Ken Evans' phone number. I'll chase Castro Valley and Devil Mountain this evening.

PDheader:1987-05-27 19:34:00-07:00 19d239a7957b7a1dd5a2d687bad40357 ∂27-May-87 1934 LES Phoning To: 87.NEE@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU

Again did pretty well on timing. When I called Ken Evans, Susie Simpson answered and said that he was off at a bike club meeting. I called him there and he confirmed that they would split their votes between us. I reached the Devil Mountain president (Richard Rex) just before he headed off to his bike club meeting. He too agreed to vote for us, though curiously he said that he had picked up the mail and had not received the ballot. I hope that someone else in the club got it. I'm still chasing Castro Valley.

PDheader:1987-05-28 14:13:00-07:00 dc3d1e62e1372af134227aa10e0157fa ∂28-May-87 1413 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu As follows Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 May 87 14:13:15 PDT Received: by lindy.STANFORD.EDU; Thu, 28 May 87 14:11:47 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 28 May 87 14:12:33 PDT Date: Thu, 28 May 87 16:08 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: As follows

PDheader:1987-05-28 17:05:00-07:00 edaf3a905de18143b89914e750e5bcba ∂28-May-87 1705 LES BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE? To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 28 May 87 16:08 CST.]

Hey, it worked! Glad to hear that you will be out again. You are welcome to stay with us, though the population has increased in our household -- all bedrooms occupied, but there is an unused twin bed in one room, a spacious couch in the living room, and a convertible couch in the family room. Also, Ian has finished destroying the kitchen, but it should be partially rebuilt by then. We possibly could rustle up a decent bike if you want. Subject: TC vs Executive Director I don't have a clear recollection of the voting in that meeting, but I thought that the Papa-Vox proposal passed. It is at least as legitimate as Bylaw B, Section 4. I was talking to some local club presidents last night, trying to hustle votes, and one of them mentioned your proxy scam on the form that was mailed out awhile ago. Nice try, but it probably won't work. I talked quickly with Jerry, whom you have brainwashed into realizing that he is even more power now that January 1 has passed. I have actually succeeded in reaching Lightbulb by leaving a message on his recorder recently. Maybe it was because he wants me to help on some of his races. He has formally requested that the TC review the Cyclo-cross issues and provide him with its recommendation on what action should be taken. Cheers, Les From decwrl!pyramid!batcomputer!mitch Thu Jun 11 18:46:12 PDT 1987 Article 948 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!decwrl!pyramid!batcomputer!mitch >From: mitch@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mitch Collinsworth) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Vets riding Senior District Championships Message-ID: <1347@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: 11 Jun 87 15:16:54 GMT Distribution: rec Organization: Program of Computer Graphics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Lines: 23 This past weekend was District Championships for TT and RR in our District. One of the guys in our club - in just his second year as a licensed rider - is now racing age 35 and officially a Vet. When he showed up to pick up his number, the District Rep. informed him that he could not ride with the Seniors. He would have to race with the Vets. Now I suppose the average Vet would probably not mind this too much since it's a lot easier to place in a Vet's race than a Senior's, but this guy doesn't race like your average Vet. Barring the usual unforseen bad luck, this guy would have most certainly placed in the TT and been right there for the sprint in the RR. The District Rep. claims that's the way the rules are written. We looked in the rulebook and found the rule that he must have been referring to, but the language was extremely vague and everyone (but the District Rep.) felt that it could be interpreted in more than one way. This, of course, smacks of age discrimination. After he'd cooled down for a few hours, my friend approached the District Rep. again and got him to agree that the rule wasn't fair. "But it's still the rule." Has anyone else run into this one? Or seen a District Rep. interpret this rule differently? Any USCF officials, district reps, directors, etc. out there care to comment? -Mitch Collinsworth From les Thu Jun 11 19:06:38 PDT 1987 Article 949 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!les >From: les@labrea.STANFORD.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Vets riding Senior District Championships Message-ID: <6546@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 12 Jun 87 02:04:48 GMT References: <1347@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Reply-To: les@labrea.UUCP (Les Earnest) Distribution: rec Organization: Stanford University Lines: 24 In article <1347@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> mitch@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mitch Collinsworth) writes: >This past weekend was District Championships for TT and RR in our District. >One of the guys in our club - in just his second year as a licensed rider - >is now racing age 35 and officially a Vet. When he showed up to pick up >his number, the District Rep. informed him that he could not ride with the >Seniors. He would have to race with the Vets. > . . . > >Has anyone else run into this one? Or seen a District Rep. interpret this >rule differently? Any USCF officials, district reps, directors, etc. out >there care to comment? > >-Mitch Collinsworth Your District Rep. is confused. The relevant rule is in the USCF Rulebook on page 25 in Bylaw M, Section 2, where the third sentence reads: "Where time permits, senior riders who are eligible may compete in more than one class in a given championship provided that all entry fees are paid." In other words, he had a right to compete in both the Senior and Age-graded events. Indeed, older Seniors do that regularly in Northern California. How do I know that this interpretation is correct? Well, I believe that the wording is pretty clear. But then, I wrote it.

PDheader:1987-06-19 14:39:00-07:00 98690f1f62c9cc5c094b785fb6122acc ∂19-Jun-87 1439 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Congratulations and Results Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Jun 87 14:39:11 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Fri, 19 Jun 87 14:38:14 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 19 Jun 87 14:38:43 PDT Date: Fri, 19 Jun 87 16:26 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Congratulations and Results To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

------- West ---- Estes Earnest Crandall Bradley ------- East ---- Lea Beal Saling Phillips ------- Central - Tilford Voxland Volski Hanley Kindly destroy this message fbefore reading; it is confidential

PDheader:1987-07-21 20:10:00-07:00 0e1222c97879315d07c2b7b2a61dfb39 ∂21-Jul-87 2010 ROKICKI@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: IBM floppy Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 87 20:10:12 PDT Date: Tue 21 Jul 87 20:04:32-PDT From: Tomas G. Rokicki <ROKICKI@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: IBM floppy To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 21 Jul 87 19:56:00-PDT Message-ID: <12320277305.18.ROKICKI@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

Certainly; go over to Sweet Hall, the basement lab with all of the demonstration machines. They have an IBM PC on the Ethernet, and you can directly ftp things onto a floppy. That's the best way I know. (Terman cluster might also have some PC's on the ethernet; you might check them out, but I generally use Sweet myself . . .) Sorry I missed you today; Jon told me you were looking for me but I was on my way out to SLAC . . . -tom -------

PDheader:1987-09-16 09:19:00-07:00 11ccdcf2bb74ba783f4ddb01573a3a7f ∂16-Sep-87 0919 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Several Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 87 09:19:02 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:19:24 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:17:45 PDT Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 11:13 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Several To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

It was my feeling that he should do this since part of the issue seems to involve things said or not said or done or not done by directors and not directors. (That is he should not independently reach decisions without benefit of the TC filtering things through). I have spoken to Mike Hanley 2x about this thingy, he is pretty much in agreement with your views.

PDheader:1987-10-05 12:55:00-07:00 b47d73874957b8d9923abede1fd70c20 ∂05-Oct-87 1255 LES Letter to Velo-news To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU

[I plan to mail this today.] Geoff Drake, Editor Velo-news Box 1257 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Dear Mr. Drake: [Enclosed is a copy of legislation that was voted on by the U.S. Cycling Federation Board of Directors at their September 26 meeting. A review of rule changes appears below and is offered for publication. If you choose to write your own article on the new rules, please feel free to draw upon the ideas presented here and omit this letter. Bracketed numbers below refer to items in the enclosed legislative agenda and are not intended for publication.] A number of rule changes were adopted by the U.S. Cycling Federation Board of Directors at their September 26 meeting that will become effective January 1, 1988. Here are some of the more interesting items. o Riders will be permitted to wear colored shorts [Item 60a] but, strangely enough, socks must still be white! Advertising will be permitted anywhere on the shorts, just as for jerseys [61b]. o The maximum prize that can be won in an amateur race is increased from $1,000 to $2,000 per day and this limit will apply to both amateur and professional riders [Item 58b]. Any prizes in excess of this amount will be returned to the rider's club if that club is a member of the USCF [58a]. o The definition of ``racing age'' has been altered in such a way that anyone who is currently 28 or older will become _two_ years older on January 1! Yes, this means that there will be nobody with a racing age of 29 under the new rule [37a]. Based on current registration, the older riders will cumulatively age an extra 10,000 years this year! o Bowing to social change, the term ``girls'' now disappears from the Rulebook, as they all become ``women''[11a]. o Women will become seniors at a racing age of 17, one year before men, in accordance with international rules. Junior women's championship age groups become 9-11, 12-14, and 15-16, replacing the four age groups currently in use (and still used for men) [39]. Given that juniors optionally may move up one age bracket in championships, the Rulebook will list the overlapping age ranges for junior women as 9-11, 9-14, and 12-16, while age groups for unrestricted juniors (mostly men) will continue to be 9-11, 9-13, 12-15, and 14-17 [40]. o The maximum distance for women's stage races is increased to 100 km. per day for flat stages in accordance with recent changes in international rules [52c]. o Competitors in Masters National Championships will be restricted to their primary age group, usually a five-year interval. They will no longer be permitted to compete in age-graded events for younger riders, though they may still compete in Senior championships [38a]. (Curiously, this change passed with just one dissenting vote -- mine.) o Rules governing keirins and round-robin sprints are added for the first time [19a, 21], as are rules for citizens' races and other developmental events [7]. o In all championship sprint competition, seeding and the initial cut will be based on a 200 meter flying start time trial [19a]. o Several junior and masters championship events are added [44a, 45b, 47, 48d], as well as team time trials for women and juniors [44b]. o The USCF membership renewal date for clubs is moved back to December 1 (30 days before rider license renewals) to reduce the problem of issuing licenses to riders whose clubs have not renewed on time [2a]. o Drug testing rules have been modified to assure an opportunity for a hearing before suspension [23a, 23b] and public disclosure of medical information is prohibited, to protect rider privacy [23c]. While some of the new rules are a bit bizarre, I believe that most of them will advance the sport of cycling. Unfortunately, there was a darker side to the Board's actions that I will discuss in a subsequent letter. Sincerely, Les Earnest cc: Rich DeGarmo (USCF President), Jerry Lace (USCF Executive Director)

PDheader:1987-10-05 12:55:01-07:00 b28d3a0fdd760d5796622b7ee27b3ec6 ∂05-Oct-87 1255 LES Another letter to Velo-news To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU

[This too.] Geoff Drake, Editor Velo-news Box 1257 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Dear Mr. Drake: [This letter is proposed for publication after USCF President Rich DeGarmo has had an opportunity to respond. Referring to the enclosed Legislative agenda, this letter is primarily concerned with Items 31 and 36.] While quite a few progressive rule changes were adopted by the U.S. Cycling Federation Board of Directors at their September 26 meeting (see my previous letter), in areas that affect the Directors' personal interests, it was dirty politics as usual. The views expressed here are my own and clearly do not represent a majority view of the Board. World Tours for Directors During its first 60 years of operation, the USCF (formerly ABL) operated under a relaxed ethical system. It was traditional for Directors to appoint themselves as coaches or managers of national teams and to travel in this capacity to various parts of the world. The riders often complained about inadequate or incompetent coaching and managing, but the Directors didn't think of this as a conflict-of-interest situation -- it was just a ``fringe benefit'' of their position. Things changed some in the early '80s. Among recent reforms was a bylaw adopted by the Board of Directors in 1984 that prohibits appointment of Directors to National Team positions unless ``there are no other applicants or the other applicants are so less qualified that their selection would clearly adversely affect the team's performance'' (USCF Bylaw F, Section 2). This effectively put an end to such ``insider'' appointments. In its latest meeting, the cited bylaw was deleted by the Board, thus freeing Directors to again make inside arrangements for world travel at the expense of the Federation. This is unfair to qualified coaches and managers who are not on the Board and invites further abuses. For example, how can a Head Coach tell a Director who is working as a team coach that he is doing a rotten job? The answer is, ``He can't,'' because the Director has a lot to say about whether the Head Coach keeps his job. In my view, the deletion of this conflict-of-interest rule opens the way for a return to the corrupt practices of the past. Reapportionment In the same meeting, a majority of the USCF Board voted to ignore the USCF Constitution in a way that enhances their personal chances of being re-elected. In my view, this was an unethical act for which they should be held individually accountable. The USCF Constitution divides the country into three Sections (Central, East, and West) and specifies that eight directors shall be elected from each section. It also requires that ``Sections shall have approximately equal numbers of registered riders and be geographically coherent'' (Article IV, Section 5, Part 1). It has been six years since the voting strength of the various sections was last balanced. The last reapportionment was based on a rider population of 9,096, whereas there are now about 28,000 riders. This growth has not been uniformly distributed across the country -- it has been slightly higher in the East than in the Central Section and much higher in the West, resulting in unbalanced political representation. There are now half again as many riders in the West (about 11,800) as in the Central Section (7,300), yet they both have the same number of directors on the Board. Last Spring, reapportionment legislation was submitted for the USCF Annual Meeting that would have approximately balanced the representation. It was rejected on the grounds that it failed to identify the club that submitted it, even though the author was known to be the President of a major USCF club. Meanwhile, other legislation that had exactly the same defect _was_ put on the agenda. During the July meeting of the USCF Board, when another Director and I expressed our intention to seek reapportionment at the September meeting of the Board, President Rich DeGarmo stated that he was opposed to this idea even though he had not seen a proposal! Subsequently, a reapportionment proposal was drafted, reviewed and approved by the USCF Legislation Committee. It would have balanced the three sections to within 65 riders by moving Ohio, West Virginia, and Alabama from the Central to the East Section and moving Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico from West to Central. This proposal was included in the legislative agenda that went to the Board of Directors two weeks before their September meeting and they were invited to consider whether they could devise any other reapportionments that might provide better balanced representation under the guidelines of the USCF Constitution. No counterproposals were forthcoming. It was clear to me that reapportionment would encounter resistance for the simple reason that it would be disadvantageous to the directors from two out of the three sections of the country -- within two years after reapportionment, at least one director in the East and three in the revised Central Section would necessarily lose their seats. Nevertheless, I hoped that the Board would see its responsibility under the Constitution and vote accordingly. That hope proved to be ill- founded, as they voted for self-interest. Led by President DeGarmo, who will be up for re-election from the Central Section next year, discussion of the reapportionment proposal was suppressed, as a majority of the Board voted to table it. They were fully aware that by so doing they were perpetuating the unfair representation; it was clear that this was of no concern to them. It is worth noting that this action directly countradicted the code of conduct that Board adopted for itself several years ago, namely Bylaw F, Section 6, which begins: ``Directors of the Federation shall carry out their duties as required by Law, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Federation, and generally accepted standards for Directors of not-for-profit corporations.'' Paragraph (d) of the same section says that they are obligated to ``Place the interests of the entire Federation ahead of local and personal interests in cycling.'' It is clear that the Board has utterly failed to live up to these standards, but this high-sounding bylaw specifies _no_ penalties for those who violate it. It allows Directors to pay lip service to ethical conduct while manipulating the Federation to suit their personal interests. Several directors, including DeGarmo, stated that they wanted to make more radical changes in the political representation of the Federation. None of these ideas was written down, but all of them apparently would require constitutional amendments, which means that they could not be considered until the 1988 Annual Meeting. Nobody could explain why reapportionment should not be adopted immediately and the more radical proposals taken up next year. President DeGarmo appointed a ``task force'' to formulate proposals for 1988. As things stand, the existing Board has successfully preserved the existing political imbalance for another year. Barring legal action, this means that reapportionment cannot begin until 1989 at the earliest and, given that only half the Board is elected each year, it could not be completed before the last half of 1990. If legislation is blocked again next year, it will take even longer. This is a sick situation. Proxy Manipulation In principle, USCF clubs could directly clean up the political structure of the Federation by proposing and adopting appropriate legislation at their House of Delegates' annual meeting. In practice, this is unlikely to happen for the following reasons. 1. Many Directors are quite successful at collecting proxies from clubs, who foolishly hand them over without taking the time to find out where the Director stands. I believe that in every annual meeting of the last decade, and possibly throughout the history of the Federation, Directors have held a majority of the proxies. As a result, the House of Delegates looks a lot like the Board of Directors with slightly different voting strengths. 2. The legislative agenda can be manipulated on technical grounds so as to exclude ``undesirable'' proposals, as happened to the reapportionment proposal that didn't get on the annual meeting agenda this year. 3. Amendments outside the USCF Constitution can be modified or repealed later by the Board to suit its own views. For example, an amendment regarding District Reps who work as officials that was adopted by the House of Delegates in July this year was repealed by the Board in September. In order for this situation to be changed, it would be necessary for a substantial number of member clubs to send their own delegates to the the annual meeting. Frankly, this is so different from past behavior that I believe it is very unlikely to happen. In any case, clubs should _not_ casually hand their proxies to the first person who asks for them. Earlier this year, the former USCF President solicited proxies under the guise of ``seeking a quorum'' and many trusting clubs responded by assigned theirs to him. Many of these clubs apparently failed to understand that the proxy-holder has the legal right to vote _any way he wishes._ Because of the trusting response of the clubs, the USCF President could have decided every issue on the 1987 Annual Meeting agenda _by himself._ As it happened, the President was coerced into sharing the proxies with other Directors -- he allocated them in accordance with a ``straw poll'' of the old Board that had been taken by mail, without benefit of hearing any arguments for or against the proposals on the agenda. I strongly recommend that clubs _never_ fall for this scam again. They should either assign their votes to a person who they are certain will represent their views with integrity and good judgment, or they should withhold their proxy. Unfortunately, if too few appoint delegates, there will not be a quorum, as has happened most of the time in recent years. Conclusions 1. In my view, after substantially cleaning up its act during the early 1980's, the USCF Board of Directors is now drifting back toward corrupt political practices. In particular, the Federation's political structure is being manipulated from within in such a way as to keep incumbents in office undeservedly. 2. While the member clubs, acting through the House of Delegates, _could_ straighten out this mess, they are unlikely to do so because that body is effectively controlled by the Board, as discussed above. 3. There likely will be another attempt to put reapportionment on the Annual Meeting agenda in 1988 and there also is likely to be a constitutional amendment offered that will require reapportionment to be done at fixed intervals. More radical proposals for altering political representation will probably be offered by the Board. All of these proposals should be given fair consideration, but I caution that you ``Beware of the Gerrymander.'' 4. An important question to consider is, ``Can the Federation straighten itself out without external legal action?'' I would have to say that it is not clear yet, but I suspect not. Nevertheless, we should be reasonably patient in trying to get responsible action through political processes. By a copy of this letter, I invite Rich DeGarmo to explain how he reached the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the Federation to suppress consideration of the reapportionment proposal at the September meeting of the Board. He might also wish to address some of the other issues that I have raised. Sincerely, Les Earnest cc: Rich DeGarmo (USCF President), Jerry Lace (USCF Executive Director)

PDheader:1987-10-08 13:37:00-07:00 d9616426ef95158fc30dcc3586b7dc8c ∂08-Oct-87 1337 @RELAY.CS.NET:marion@home.csc.ti.com Reprinting net articles Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Oct 87 13:37:24 PDT Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae25389; 8 Oct 87 16:13 EDT Received: from csl.ti.com by RELAY.CS.NET id bh24474; 8 Oct 87 16:11 EDT Received: from Wilbur by tilde id AA12920; Thu, 8 Oct 87 14:30:32 CDT Message-Id: <2769708597-5057438@Wilbur> Sender: MARION%wilbur.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET Date: Thu, 8 Oct 87 14:29:57 CDT From: Marion Lineberry <marion%home.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET> To: Les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Cc: Marion%home.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET Subject: Reprinting net articles

Les, I would like to reprint your letters to VeloNews in our club newsletter. Can I get your permission to do so? Marion Lineberry Mirage Cycling Team

PDheader:1987-10-08 14:59:00-07:00 1bf5f714771e2c4276ab8d21ef01bb5c ∂08-Oct-87 1459 LES re: Reprinting net articles To: marion%home.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET [In reply to message sent Thu, 8 Oct 87 14:29:57 CDT.]

BTW, you may not be surprised to learn that the traditional bugs in the licensee database programs are still there after 8 years. The draft rulebook appendices showed that the total number of riders by district in '88 was 31,717, while the total by age was 31,769. Does the difference of 52 represent riders with indeterminate age? Who knows. As you know, I used to fiddle the numbers to make them consistent, though almost certainly wrong. The last time I got a set of consistent numbers was from Tim Nicholson's database program in 1989. Just for fun, I checked the rulebooks for the last few years and found that they failed to give the numbers by district in 1986, but did show them for 1987 and 1988 and someone had made them consistent. There is a more subtle consistency check that I also used to use: the total number of men in age groups 18-34 should be the same as the total number of men listed in the four racing categories for that age range. Sure enough, this has been consistently inconsistent since I stopped editing -- for example, the difference was 43 for '87 and 16 for '88. My view is that a database program that can't count is a piece of shit that should be cleaned up. Leaving it as it is provides a convenient way to explain all discrepancies, which opens the door to embezzlement, among other things. Over the last 8 years, I have written memos about this to Mary Cappy, Andy Bohlmann, and Dave Prouty, among others. Dave promised to hire a programmer and get it fixed about four years ago. He did hire a programmer as a consultant, but it appears that nothing has changed. I guess that the only way to get action will be to try to embarrass them by going semi-public -- perhaps another Cyclops article is in order. Hope to see you Saturday evening.

PDheader:1987-10-13 18:16:00-07:00 0d8506f5e5ebb73cc7173c1c912495f9 ∂13-Oct-87 1816 esunix!ias.dnet!jonparker@decwrl.dec.com changes in racing age Received: from DECWRL.DEC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Oct 87 18:16:44 PDT Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34) id AA03067; Tue, 13 Oct 87 18:17:25 PDT Message-Id: <8710140117.AA03067@decwrl.dec.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 09:20:31 mdt From: esunix!ias.dnet!jonparker@decwrl.dec.com (Jon Parker x 4782) To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: changes in racing age

Art ------ Les,

PDheader:1987-10-13 19:11:00-07:00 2da8c147efeabab0527ee337b6750fee ∂13-Oct-87 1911 LES re: changes in racing age To: esunix!ias.dnet!jonparker@DECWRL.DEC.COM [In reply to message sent Tue, 13 Oct 87 09:20:31 mdt.]

The basic reason was that a points system is more rational than the old rule -- after all, why should 3 third place finishes have sufficed, but 6 fourth places were needed for upgrading. Jonathan, I noticed last year that postings on Rec.bicycles claimed that the USCF used a point system for upgrading. I informed the readers of that bboard that this was incorrect, but on reflection concluded that a points system is more sensible. It also has the advantage of being familiar, in that omniums, points races, and madisons are decided in the same way. Thanks for your interest. Les Regarding your racing age, if you turn 34 in the summer of 1988, then your racing age will be 34 from the beginning to the end of 1988. In other words, your racing age will increase just one extra year beyond normal aging.

PDheader:1987-10-20 08:27:00-07:00 366645fa7391147260e9078faf94337a ∂20-Oct-87 0827 AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 87 08:27:41 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 20 Oct 87 08:28:20 PDT Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 08:25:23 PDT From: John D Kennedy <AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu> To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS

maybe we should proscribe the use of elapsed time in stage races, reducing them to omniums (omnia?), to reinforce the familiar. Lester: ------ As you may have noticed, we are nearing completion of the Math Corner Courtyard construction project. Thanks for your patience and I appologize for the project taking longer than we had hoped. The bike lockers should be place in the new location in the courtyard this week. Please ask your people to wait until the locker has been anchored down before you, and they, start using it. A number of people have asked if the locker will be used and if there is a possibility that it not be returned to the courtyard. I am passing this question along to you. Do you anticipate the bike lockers will continue to be used? Is there a chance the lockers could be relocated or removed? I look forward to your reply. John D. Kennedy To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU cc: CS.RBS

PDheader:1987-10-23 12:26:00-07:00 0f3adf3c10631c1a14c9c9891ce1e7ef ∂23-Oct-87 1226 LES re: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS To: AR.JDK@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 20 Oct 87 08:25:23 PDT.]

John: Just got back from Boston and found your message. We certainly ARE planning to resume use of the lockers in the new courtyard. Furthermore, I will shortly launch a political campaign aimed at causing more such lockers to be embedded in the local environment. I realize that the Planning Office doesn't love them, but I hope to convince all interested parties that it is in the best interests of the university to provide such facilities inasmuch as they can effectively offset some of the need for more car parking facilities at substantially lower costs, both in dollars and space.

PDheader:1987-10-23 14:24:00-07:00 90fc7a0ec9cc2efbadd6fc6f61b2c3d5 ∂23-Oct-87 1424 AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu re: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Oct 87 14:24:40 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Fri, 23 Oct 87 14:23:18 PDT Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 14:23:02 PDT From: John D Kennedy <AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu> To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: re: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS

And oh, I never got chapters 20-26 of your postings from this summer. (rec.bicycles). Could you send them to me if you still have them? REPLY TO 10/23/87 12:26 FROM LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU "Les Earnest": re: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS Thanks. Art ------ Les:

PDheader:1987-10-29 00:33:00-08:00 99908873d1797cb9fbb645a50cb51d90 ∂29-Oct-87 0033 LES Records interpretation To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU

While reviewing the draft '88 Rulebook, I discovered what I believe is an erroneous rule interpretation regarding records, which was also reflected in the records report from Andy Bohlmann that you included in your last TechComm report. I invite you to take a position on this issue. I note that the records rules make no stipulation about the kind of event in which a given record is set -- all that matters for senior riders is that they meet or exceed the minimum age for the record they set. For example, a 37 year old rider competing in a senior 40 km. time trial might set a senior 35 record and possibly even senior 30 and unrestricted senior records. In other words, senior time trial records should never go DOWN as age goes up -- instead, the older rider should be listed as the holder of the record for more than one age class. Nevertheless, the 1987 Rulebook exhibits this anomalous property and the draft '88 Rulebook increases the anomaly. For example, in the '87 Rulebook on page 90, the 40 km. record for Senior 40 men is shown as 54:13.68 for Robert Brooks while the Senior 35 record is shown as 54:17.4 for Lindsay Crawford. I claim that Brooks holds both records. The really absurd thing about the current listing is that Crawford was over 40 when he set that record -- the records section used to list him as the record holder for both 35 and 40 before Brooks beat his time. If you agree with my interpretation, please tell Andy to handle records applications and the rulebook listing accordingly. If you don't agree, let's fight! You say you didn't get chapters 20-26 of a posting I did last summer. If that was on drug testing and politics, I no longer have the straight text, but do have a troff version, slightly rewritten. Les

PDheader:1987-10-29 22:12:00-08:00 ccb505d06824d091443d51d74864eb46 ∂29-Oct-87 2212 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu records Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 22:12:11 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 29 Oct 87 22:10:51 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 29 Oct 87 22:11:47 PST Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 00:11 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: records

PDheader:1987-10-30 13:21:00-08:00 adaf60b9c1fd47d3c6c8f269a8d974e2 ∂30-Oct-87 1321 LES re: records To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 30 Oct 87 00:11 CST.]

The rule you quote about riders competing only in the event for their racing age does not take effect until next year. We are talking about records that were set under the existing rules, which say "Where time permits, senior riders who are eligible may compete in more than one class in a given championship provided that all entry fees are paid" [Bylaw M, Section 2]. Given that all riders above a given lower bound on age are eligible to compete in time trial championships, they all may establish records in age groups below their own. The records rules make no stipulation about the specific event in which the record is set -- it might be any random time trial. Therefore, it is clear than Andy has inadvertently misinterpreted the existing rules and also failed to follow precedent -- the rulebook has listed multiple-age-group records for as long as they have been recognized. For example, in the '87 Rulebook look at Pat Patton's 40 km. TT record for both 60+ and 65+ age groups and Judy Layton's record for 30+ and 35+. [As a matter of fact, I ran the event at which Judy Layton set that record and remember that she was over 40. She was recognized as the record-hold in three age groups (30+, 35+, 40+) in the '85 and '86 Rulebooks. I would like to know who-in-Hell approved replacing Layton's 40+ record in the '87 Rulebook with Joan Paul's, which is 8 minutes slower. As usual, the records work is being handled very sloppily.] As for the question of how records rules should be interpreted next year, I claim that they were written in the context of the existing championship regulations, which place only a lower bound on age. There has been no discussion of changing this interpretation and I believe that no change should be made without careful review. For example, if it is decided to change to strict age brackets, then ALL existing age-graded records should be reviewed and those that were set by people outside the specified age ranges should be removed or replaced. Andy's screwups notwithstanding, I believe that the established policy makes more sense and, therefore, I do not advocate changing it.

PDheader:1987-11-02 21:41:00-08:00 2b78d5f478b8af8fa180952f5a994d16 ∂02-Nov-87 2141 LES Letter of support To: burich@APPLE.COM

Viki: The following table is used once all the entrants have been seeded, with the fastest rider designated by A1, the second by A2, and so on. lf there are fewer than 24 entrants, the table may be used by crossing out any unnecessary table entries. For example, if there are 20 entrants, cross out entries A1 - A24, and classifications B21 - B24 in the 1/16th finals round. In all cases, the letter designates the phase of the competition and the number indicates the current estimate of the rider's rank. An asterisk (*) in the table indicates a repechage rider who has been eliminated from further rounds. I received your letter and will be happy to support your application. Questions: 1/16th Finals, 24 riders 1. I assume that you want my endorsement as a race official, right? (Though I am on the USCF Board, I do not speak for them as a body.) Heat Composition Results 1st 2nd 3rd 1 A1 A16 A24 B1 B16 B24 2 A2 A15 A23 B2 B15 B23 3 A3 A14 A22 B3 B14 B22 4 A4 A13 A21 B4 B13 B21 5 A5 A12 A20 B5 B12 B20 6 A6 A11 A19 B6 B11 B19 7 A7 A10 A18 B7 B10 B18 8 A8 A9 A17 B8 B9 B17 2. Who should I send the endorsement to? Repechage Les Earnest 1 B9 B16 B18 B23 C9 * * 2 B10 B15 B17 B24 C10 * * 3 B11 B14 B20 B21 C11 * * 4 B12 B13 B19 B22 C12 * *

PDheader:1987-11-04 08:00:00-08:00 7ffd9b1208600d9d5194a5ee191d9831 ∂04-Nov-87 0800 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu RE: Reapportionment Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 08:00:30 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 4 Nov 87 07:59:20 PST From: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 4 Nov 87 07:59:58 PST Date: Wed, 4 Nov 87 09:58 CDT Subject: RE: Reapportionment To: Les Earnest <LES@sail.stanford.edu> X-Vms-To: IN%"Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>"

1/8th Finals, 12 riders Heat Composition Results 1st 2nd 3rd 1 B1 B8 C12 D1 D8 D12 2 B2 B7 C11 D2 D7 D11 3 B3 B6 C10 D3 D6 D10 4 B4 B5 C9 D4 D5 D9

PDheader:1987-11-04 14:49:00-08:00 f288e35b3d11a5c7dfa9358b1e1d39ad ∂04-Nov-87 1449 LES re: Reapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 4 Nov 87 09:58 CDT.]

I gather that you have nothing to say on reapportionment, given that your message was blank. Did you get a copy of Stan Solin's proposal? What do you have to say about the records issue? When I talked to Andy on Friday, it turned out that he was already aware of the erroneous deletion of Judy Layton's 40+ record and was planning to restore it.

PDheader:1987-11-04 23:02:00-08:00 63f10b2300bad86b379a72d8285ebf78 ∂04-Nov-87 2302 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Reapportionment, Records, Spokane Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 23:02:00 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 4 Nov 87 23:00:47 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 4 Nov 87 23:00:57 PST Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 00:00 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Reapportionment, Records, Spokane To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

Repechage 1 D5 D11 E5 * 2 D6 D12 E6 * 3 D7 D9 E7 * 4 D8 D10 E8 * - - - - - 1) Reapportionment ... I haven't received anything from Stan, did you send me something too? I have to confess that just today John Easton and I were teaching ourselves how to purge old mail files. Well I think the first one in the list was a reapportionment recipie, but I thought it was your old mail of some time ago, so I didn't pay any attention (I 80% sure it was not a new message). 2) On records, I also checked in with Andy on the Judy Layton thing. As far as how to interpret the rules, I think it requires a lot of stretching and inference to use the multiple event entry rules to figure out who gets a national record. It is a lot more simple to use a "you are what you win", even if its faster than the record in a younger age division. For better or worse, the Technical Commission and Board approved the records only in the narrow age brackets, and I don't see a good grounds, let alone a strong grounds, to fiddle with what has been approved over the past two years. I suggest you prepare some legislation to make crystal clear what should be done. Regards. PS -- I went to Spokane to review the Road courses for the nats. and Olympic trials. Fraysse was also there. The circuits are long and continuously narrow. I decided that no field should be over 120 riders. Fortunately, there are plans for elimination heats either 2 of about 70 miles or 3 of 35 or so. The TT course is narrow at the turnaround. There is fantastic cooperation from the City and County, evidenced at a joint meeting of the government boards where the fullest support was pledged in a joint resolution. The other road selection race course is going to be stunningly flat. It doesn't exactly feel right to be choosing such a circuit except for that Seoul's profile is (according to Eddie Borysewicz) "a lot like Summerville." So we have to find a rider more along the lines of Davis Phinney and so it was necessary to avoid the spectacular climbing possibilities which Spokane offers.

PDheader:1987-11-05 00:38:00-08:00 c2be8e518a41efa7707a479ef40cc2ff ∂05-Nov-87 0038 LES re: Reapportionment, Records, Spokane To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 5 Nov 87 00:00 CST.]

Yes, I didn't send you anything on reapportionment recently. The blank message from you was likely an unexpected side effect of your file fiddling. On records, you say: > As far as how to interpret the rules, I think it requires a lot > of stretching and inference to use the multiple event entry > rules to figure out who gets a national record. It is a lot more > simple to use a "you are what you win", even if its faster than the > record in a younger age division. If you think that the analysis that I presented involves "stretching and inference" then it is clear that your thinking is very muddled on this issue. Adding records to the book that are inconsistent with those already in the book is the height of idiocy. Let me point out that not only did I write the current records rules but I was practically the sole interpreter of such rules for about eight years ('77-'85). I have no problem with changing the interpretations provided that it is done consistently, but you do not seem to care about that. If you are content to say "whatever happened must be right," which is what you seem to be saying, then I will sadly walk away from this and watch the inconsistencies mount. It is clear that you don't give a damn about records, but then neither does anyone else on the Board. I do not plan to waste any more time on legislative repairs to the mess you are creating. I will, however, not hesitate to point out the error of your ways as the opportunities present themselves. The waiting period will be rather short, I expect. [Page 9] 1/4th Finals, 8 riders Cheers, Les K.2 (Officials licensing): I put it in as you wrote it, except that I deleted the following passage from Part 1 because it provides a repetitive (and, eventually, potentially conflicting) description of responsibilities defined in Rule 1H: "A chief referee manages the overall conduct of a race, assigning and delegating duties to the other officials; chief officials are responsible for general functions; assistant officials carry out specific duties."

PDheader:1987-11-05 01:50:00-08:00 203c6ac3459bc2055f8eb02d3dc52ab4 ∂05-Nov-87 0150 LES re: Reapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 5 Nov 87 00:00 CST.]

For your information, Stan Solin's reapportionment idea is as follows. "Divide the country into 24 equal `directorships' by zipccode. This would mean that on a given day, say November 30, take the total membership and divide by 24. Flip a coin to determine which end of America's Zipcode spetrum to start at and just count in zipcode order, say to 1200, and that's directorship #1, and so on. Let the Zips fall where they may." Here is my response, which I plan to mail shortly. Dear Stan, Your proposal certainly would make reapportionment nonpolitical. Unfortunately, it would also make it rather incoherent. The proposal would have to be elaborated a bit, I believe, lest rounding errors accumulate and make the last region either much too large or too small. I know a way to specify it that will avoid this problem, however. The political aspects of your scheme are even more complicated. The boundaries between electoral regions would generally bear no relationship to racing districts, states, or other organizational units and would change in unpredictable ways each time reapportionment was undertaken. Because of rider population densities, boundaries between regions would be more likely to occur in urban areas than in rural areas. Given that the boundaries would fluctuate, it often would happen that two directors who live near each other but who are in different regions in a given election might find that they are in the same region in the next election. With a little help from their friends, of course, director candidates could avoid such problems by simply changing their ``residence'' (i.e. using a friend's mailbox). You can bet that there would be a lot of such finagling under a mechanistic reapportionment scheme such as the one you suggest. Though doing reapportionment through political processes has its own hazards, which are substantial, I believe that it has a better chance of maintaining a coherent electoral structure. If you compose such regions from districts, 24 is too many considering the number of large districts. Twelve can be made to work, however. Having two directors from each region would also provide alternative paths to the board, which I think would be healthy. Them's my thoughts. Though the idea of a mechanistic reapportionment process is appealing from the standpoint of minimizing hassles, I think that it should be a much cleverer scheme than the cookie-cutter approach. [Page 11] Heat Composition Results 1st 2nd 1 D1 E7 F1 F7 2 D2 E8 F2 F8 3 D3 E5 F3 F5 4 D4 E6 F4 F6 Les Fees 9 (Officials Fees): I fiddled this a bit, more or less as we discussed. After staring at the revised fees table a bit, I conclude that the gap between "Chief Officials" and "Other Officials" is too great. I added an amendment to narrow the gap.

PDheader:1987-11-16 22:30:00-08:00 34a61c85afddf5229a3506970ce984b1 ∂16-Nov-87 2230 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Reapportionment Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Nov 87 22:29:56 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Mon, 16 Nov 87 22:27:39 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 16 Nov 87 22:28:22 PST Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 00:27 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Reapportionment To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

[Page 12] I rephrased the remarks about the district "surcharge" on the grounds that it is not a surcharge -- surcharges are _an addition to_ some basic charge. Using that term would certainly lead to confusion. (It would be better still, I believe, to not mention district association fees, but you didn't buy that argument earlier.) I also moved the descriptions of things included in the basic entry fee into the segment on basic entry fees, which I claim is more logical. Les: Here are my thoughts, some of which resembles your earlier proposals for a 3 Section scheme. I have not thought about the transition issues. At the moment I favor the at large positions, so even if we divided into six, I think there should remain a guarantee of one director to be elected from each of the twelve regions. I have not thought a lot about it, however. USCF Geographical Structure with 12 or 6 Sections (Percents are the deviation from the ideal size) Area Reg Licensees Reg Tot Sec Tot Sec * New England Connecticut 1 621 1 Maine-New Hampshire 1 247 1 Mass-Rhode I 1 1121 1 Vermont 1 137 1 -9% 2126 * Mid Atlantic New Jersey 2 859 1 New York (N) 2 577 1 New York (S) 2 1173 1 11% 2609 4735 1% * Mid Central Illinois 3 1012 2 Indiana-Kentucky 3 616 2 Michigan 3 553 2 Tennessee 3 184 2 1% 2365 * East Central Maryland-Del 4 527 2 Ohio 4 621 2 Pennsylvania 4 1009 2 -8% 2157 4522 -4% * South Central Alabama 5 136 3 Arkansas 5 106 3 Kansas 5 121 3 Louisiana 5 295 3 Mississippi 5 76 3 Oklahoma 5 112 3 Texas 5 1414 3 -4% 2260 3 * South Atlantic Florida 6 749 3 Georgia 6 325 3 North Carolina 6 544 3 South Carolina 6 118 3 Virginia-DC 6 678 3 3% 2414 4674 0% * North Central Idaho 7 219 4 Iowa 7 250 4 Minnesota 7 679 4 Missouri 7 300 4 Montana 7 123 4 Nebraska 7 102 4 Wisconsin 7 559 4 Wyoming 7 117 4 7 0% 2349 4 * Rocky Mountains Colorado 8 1811 4 New Mexico 8 301 4 Utah 8 324 4 8 4% 2436 4785 4 2% * South West Southern California 9 4073 5 (Divide for election?) 74% 4073 Arizona 10 697 -70% 697 4770 5 2% * North California Northern California 11 2852 6 (Divide for election?) 11 22% 2852 6 * Pacific Northwest Alaska 12 93 6 Washington 12 968 6 Oregon 12 491 6 Hawaii 12 238 6 -24% 1790 4642 -1% Foreign 0 31 31 31 Ideal Region, Section 2347 4693 Grand Total 28159 28159 --------- On another thought. My last word to Leibold was that in view of the comment attached to the legislation regarding national championship ages, I thought your position was right about how the age ranges should be printed. However, I don't like the way it will look in the rule book. Once again the BOD appears to have voted for something without seeing what it would look like. Uggggh. (I would not have favored what your comment proposed, but it got passed me.) Cheers (I'm at Colorado this Friday, Saturday, then off to UCI/FIAC meetings in Luxembourg). Call Andy if you want to know more about Norba - they have asked us not to issue race permits to cyclo-cross events that allow "mountain bikes" to be used!

PDheader:1987-11-18 00:16:00-08:00 b1ffd7830680ae55e60d5f703d16bdff ∂18-Nov-87 0016 LES re: Reapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 17 Nov 87 00:27 CST.]

If you retain the idea of at-large directors and have 12 sections with at least one director from each section, then everyone will have to campaign nationally. That can be made to work, but on economic grounds it would require the annual publication of a voters' pamphlet with candidate statements. All reasonable, but it would somewhat require greater lead time. Withe respect to Leibold, I appreciate your trying to keep him honest, but it didn't work. I am extremely disappointed in his unethical actions in changing my amendment and am now planning to ask for his resignation. I also will render no more assistance to Bob as long as he is Legislation Chairman. Have fun!

PDheader:1987-11-18 11:39:00-08:00 63257bf0f1be066c1151a3869fd4fa54 ∂18-Nov-87 1139 AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Nov 87 11:39:44 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 18 Nov 87 11:37:08 PST Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 11:37:46 PST From: John D Kennedy <AR.JDK@forsythe.stanford.edu> To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: MATH CORNER COURTYARD BIKE LOCKERS

[Page 13] Fifth to Eighth Places, 4 riders Les: Bylaw E (Development Committee): I changed it from Section 5 to Section 3 on the grounds that all the super-committees should precede the others. The bike locker repairs are complete. They seem to operate now, please let me know if there are any more problems. I have returned the keys to the secretary that sits next to the "PONY" file. I tried to put the keys back into the metal box in the file drawer but they would not fit. I'll let you handle it from here. Cheers!! John D. Kennedy To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU cc: CS.RBS

PDheader:1987-11-25 19:10:00-08:00 42d1e8bdb6a2d819de46a507d9a8cf8e ∂25-Nov-87 1910 Mailer Under 280 on two wheels To: JULIA@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

[In reply to message sent Wed 25 Nov 87 08:34:10-PST.] > Has anybody ever figured out a safe way to go under 280 on Page Mill Road > on a bicycle? I have tried just about every strategy I can think of and . . . I trust that you are talking about riding outbound on Page Mill Road, where one encounters two lanes of heavy traffic zipping into a freeway entrance. There is no completely safe method, but there is a strategy that works rather well. The basic idea is to signal your intentions clearly, maneuver decisively, and take no crap from anyone. As you approach the dreaded crossing, look back for some kind of gap in the traffic. Whether or not you find one, signal clearly that you are going to make a lane change to the left and do it. Repeat the process one more time and you are there. Ninety percent of the time, the motorists will yield politely. About 10% of the time some dimwit will lean on his horn or try to pass you in the same lane. For hornblowers, I usually slow down, turn my head, and fix them with a baleful stare. If they persist, I signal my assessment of their inelligence while continuing to execute the plan. In order to deter those who would try to get by you, it is important that you move decisively into the center of the lane, so that there is no room for them to get by without changing lanes. Stay there until you are ready to make the next lane change. There will always be a few yahoos who believe that they own the road and act accordingly, but most drivers are reasonably polite. As long as you signal your intentions and make it easiest for them to do the right thing, they will do it. You never can tell when you may encounter a drunk, drugged, or deranged driver, but that is part of the risk of travel. In my 50+ years of aggressive biking, the only damage to my body so far has been self-inflicted. Heat Composition Results 1 F5 F6 F7 F8 5th 6th 7th 8th Les Earnest

PDheader:1987-12-08 10:29:00-08:00 bb20270dc0c129596390f2ad3f67e06b ∂08-Dec-87 1029 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Metteting of the Board and Technoids Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 10:29:29 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 8 Dec 87 10:26:36 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 8 Dec 87 10:28:12 PST Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 12:26 CST

PDheader:1987-12-08 13:29:00-08:00 e1493eef59dbcf2870ce48a3f71ae291 ∂08-Dec-87 1329 LES re: Metteting of the Board and Technoids To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 8 Dec 87 12:26 CST.]

I am puzzled by Jerry's reasoning regarding the planned Long Beach meeting. It was planned to be there precisely because a substantial portion of the Board would be going there anyway. Also, he can't decide that -- it was already decided by the Board. The Executive Committee could conceivably change the plan based on new developments. > Why haven't you been yelling about anything lately? Mainly because I am still incredibly pissed off about the high-handed and illegal legislative modification made by Leibold. Let me now introduce a new issue that should be addressed by the TC. I have received a report from a reliable source that the new disk wheels made by Campy consist of spokes overlaid with a thin, nonstructural aerodynamic shield, which should be illegal under both UCI and USCF regulations. The spokes are unusual in that they consist of thin plastic (Kevlar) strips, each about an inch wide. It is my understanding that these wheels have been approved by the UCI. If so, it would be interesting to look into the political background of the decision -- it is clear that UCI is very much in bed with Campy and I would not be surprised if subtle payola were involved. In any case, if we can verify this report, I believe that we have the responsibility to ban the use of these wheels unless and until the "spoke cover" amendment is adopted. If we do this, it will be interesting to see the reaction from the UCI.

PDheader:1987-12-12 01:15:00-08:00 9a638938a7b3b4882c3657714a4068d6 ∂12-Dec-87 0115 burich@apple.com Re: Letter of support Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Dec 87 01:15:13 PST Received: from apple.com by RELAY.CS.NET id aa17596; 12 Dec 87 2:37 EST Return-Path: <burich@apple.CSNET> Received: by Apple.COM (4.12/5.2.Apple) id AA12273; Fri, 11 Dec 87 21:35:48 pst Message-Id: <8712120535.AA12273@Apple.COM> Received: by apple.csnet (4.12/5.1.Apple) id AA11936; Tue, 3 Nov 87 08:29:21 pst Date: Tue, 3 Nov 87 08:29:21 pst From: Vicki Burich <burich@APPLE.COM> Posted-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 87 08:29:21 pst To: LES%SAIL%stanford.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, burich@apple.com Subject: Re: Letter of support Les: Thanks for the table, now I know what you meant. I like that

it maintains the seeding with the numeric portion, while also differentiating the various rounds. Les, HOWEVER, I persisted with what the Tech. Commission adopted with regard to the composition of the 1/16th finals repechage rounds. It may look unsystematic, but isn't. It collapses into to the 4-up rounds what otherwise would have been the pairings with 2-up heats. Also, it is a little more sensible when used with fewer then 24 entrants. Please send the letter to me at the address on the letter. I'll be sending the completed forms with my letters of recommendation. BESIDES, it looked like the same sort of diddling which annoyed you with Leibold and the rulebook. So there. Your endorsement as a race official is fine. ANYHOW, Do you still think you will not be at the officials conclave? We've had more snow, and now that I have a Toro Snowthrower, I even cheer for a blizzard. It looks like Sunday evening some of my computer crowd will be coming by for a 2nd annual computniks Super Bowl bash. We are not sure when the game is but there will be beer and the party will start around 5. Here's my address again just in case you need it! Vicki Burich, 464 Maureen Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306. (actually not knowing when the game starts is an eligibility requirement for an invitation. Do you qualify?) Thank you very much, -Vicki ↓↓↓↓↓

PDheader:1987-12-15 10:45:00-08:00 961e2984b7a7a6d0887fb8cb96d257c2 ∂15-Dec-87 1045 burich%apple.apple.com@RELAY.CS.NET re: Letter of support Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Dec 87 10:42:37 PST Received: from [192.5.58.12] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa16744; 15 Dec 87 12:30 EST Return-Path: <burich> Received: by Apple.COM (4.12/5.2.Apple) id AA15365; Tue, 15 Dec 87 08:12:19 pst Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 08:12:19 pst From: Vicki Burich <burich%apple.apple.com@RELAY.CS.NET> Posted-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 08:12:19 pst Message-Id: <8712151612.AA15365@Apple.COM> To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, burich@apple.com Subject: re: Letter of support

I have begun to develop some sort of a system to select the UCI upgrade crowd. I'll bounce it your way when I get a little further with it. Les, I think something is seriously wrong with the Arpanet. I rec'd your letter of support before Nov. 11th. Sorry for any confusion and thanx for your help. I got the other copy yesterday! Vicki

PDheader:1987-12-26 11:29:00-08:00 42859b0529eff5c61056664a5c501852 ∂26-Dec-87 1129 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Dividing all of Gaul into more than 3 parts Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Dec 87 11:28:59 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Sat, 26 Dec 87 11:26:46 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 26 Dec 87 11:27:51 PST Date: Sat, 26 Dec 87 10:39 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Dividing all of Gaul into more than 3 parts To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

- - - - - - - - Heat Composition Results 1 G1 G2 1st 2nd 2 G3 G4 3rd 4th

PDheader:1988-01-06 11:03:00-08:00 84e197651456db2bff49065ee5280cac ∂06-Jan-88 1103 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Mulitifarious? Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Jan 88 11:03:12 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 6 Jan 88 11:01:00 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 6 Jan 88 11:02:01 PST Date: Wed, 6 Jan 88 13:00 CST

---------------- >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)

PDheader:1988-01-06 22:01:00-08:00 c0c1aacade786afa8eb6b0917eec5a25 ∂06-Jan-88 2201 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Dividing up the cheese cake Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Jan 88 22:01:18 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 6 Jan 88 21:59:18 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 6 Jan 88 22:00:09 PST Date: Wed, 6 Jan 88 23:59 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Dividing up the cheese cake To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

- - - - - - - You say: "I talked with Irv Ochowicz and Nestor Evancevich to get some of their ideas. I infer that they need some discretion to say "no", so I am cool towards mandating the tables and points entirely." I am puzzled by this remark. Just why do district reps need to be able to say "No?" Is it so that they will still have some power, now that you are defining what is a qualifying race? Gary, Continuing with the superbowl ... You say: " Part 6. A "qualifying race" within the meaning of this Bylaw is a mass start event that can be entered by any rider of a given category in which the cycling ability and performance of the entrants is similar to or better than that of all current members of a given the rider's category." I think that this would be clearer if the last line read: " that of all current senior riders in the given the rider's category." I still think that Parts 6 and 7 would read better if they were combined.

PDheader:1988-01-11 22:15:00-08:00 47f8a59b0d103f15ba94a821230b1383 ∂11-Jan-88 2215 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Cheesecake off another sort Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jan 88 22:15:18 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Mon, 11 Jan 88 22:12:34 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 11 Jan 88 22:07:35 PST Date: Tue, 12 Jan 88 00:05 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Cheesecake off another sort

If you would like to put in mountain bike rules, I suggest that we bite the bullet and put it and cyclocross in a new section called "Off Road Racing." In fact, the following would prbably be the best structure. 1. General Racing 2. Track Racing 3. Road Racing 4. Stage Racing 5. Off-road Racing 6. Championship Qualification 7. Records 8. Medical Control Or maybe we should call it "Dirt Racing," not to be confused with "dirty racing." Actually, I kind of like that; it seems better to identify what the dominant racing surface _is_ rather than what it _isn't_. Nitpicks: I am surprised by 2K4(c): (c) In a circuit race, riders on different laps may not ride together; the slower rider should allow the faster rider to pass ahead. For one thing, that is different from our cyclocross rules, under which riders on different laps may work together, as in criteriums. Besides, the wording is a bit vague: the question of who is the faster rider is likely to change from time to time and from place to place on the course. I see that 2K2(a) says: The finish shall be a minimum of 7 meters wide beginning from a distance 200 meters before the line until 50 meters after the line. This strikes me as excessive -- dirt bike races seldom have more than two riders sprinting for any given placing and it is often just a strung-out parade. You say: >I enclose, for reference, your original posting to the net. The second >sentence in the first paragraph states that the error (letting the >Polish athlete compete) was made by the chief referee; there was no >mention of the athlete's manager in any part of your posting. There didn't need to be. The chief referee was at fault for accepting the lies without referring the issue back to the appeals jury, so there is no inconsistency in those statements. >The posting goes on to state that a *recent* change in the rules made him >ineligible to compete in the event. Please read it again. It says that the recent rule change will make him ineligible for the next five years. In fact, that rule change was adopted before the cyclocross nationals but took effect just afterward, on January 1, 1989. >I stand by what I said in my letter to you, and I do believe you owe me an >apology. On the contrary, it is clear that you owe me an apology, but I will settle for dropping this pointless discussion.

PDheader:1988-01-23 21:41:00-08:00 c5b4922d12ac3dd5c12845a0fee9cb7c ∂23-Jan-88 2141 LES Sprint organization To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU

Here is your sprint table with the notational change that I suggested last year. In all cases, the letter designates the phase of the competition and the number indicates the current estimate of rider rank. Semi-finals, 4 riders Naturally, I couldn't resist fiddling things a bit -- I made the first round repechage more systematic without introducing any rematches. Heat Composition Results 1st 2nd 1 F1 F4 G1 G3 2 F2 F3 G2 G4 Organization of Sprint Events with 16 to 24 Entrants Finals, 4 riders | Results Round Composition | 1st 2nd 3rd -(1/16th finals, 24 riders)-------|----------------- 1 A1 A16 A24 | B1 B16 B24 2 A2 A15 A23 | B2 B15 B23 3 A3 A14 A22 | B3 B14 B22 4 A4 A13 A21 | B4 B13 B21 5 A5 A12 A20 | B5 B12 B20 6 A6 A11 A19 | B6 B11 B19 7 A7 A10 A18 | B7 B10 B18 8 A8 A9 A17 | B8 B9 B17 - - - - - - - - ( Repechage ) - - | - - - - - - - - 1 B9 B16 B20 B21 | C9 * * * 2 B10 B15 B19 B22 | C10 * * * 3 B11 B14 B18 B23 | C11 * * * 4 B12 B13 B17 B24 | C12 * * * -(1/8th finals, 12 riders)-------|----------------- 1 B1 B8 C12 | D1 D8 D12 2 B2 B7 C11 | D2 D7 D11 3 B3 B6 C10 | D3 D6 D10 4 B4 B5 C9 | D4 D5 D9 - - - - - - - - ( Repechage ) - - | - - - - - - - - - 1 D5 D11 | E5 * 2 D6 D12 | E6 * 3 D7 D9 | E7 * 4 D8 D10 | E8 * -(1/4th finals, 8 riders)---------|------------------ 1 D1 E7 | F1 F7 2 D2 E8 | F2 F8 3 D3 E5 | F3 F5 4 D4 E6 | F4 F6 -(5th - 8th places, 4 riders)-----|------------------ 1 F5 F6 F7 F8 | G5 G6 G7 G8 -(Semi-finals, 4 riders)----------|------------------ 1 F1 F4 | G1 G4 2 F2 F3 | G2 G3 -(Finals, 4 riders)---------------|------------------ 1 G1 G2 | H1 H2 2 G3 G4 | H3 H4

PDheader:1988-01-26 07:24:00-08:00 7698adc844e1022a2bb8168bb287fccc ∂26-Jan-88 0724 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu SuperBowl Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 88 07:24:06 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 26 Jan 88 07:25:01 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 26 Jan 88 07:23:15 PST Date: Mon, 25 Jan 88 23:41 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Metteting of the Board and Technoids Subject: SuperBowl To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu, EVV6101

I see that you deleted your Executive Committee proposals, presumably because you believe that they were adopted by the Board. Beth sent me a copy of what she thought was adopted, which is a bit different. As I remarked earlier, I believe that no specific legislation was adopted. I was listening with the expectation that Rich was going to propose that something be adopted (as he said he would earlier in the day) and I was prepared to argue for postponement. When the time came, he asked for an approval "of the concept" or something like that, but I heard no request for a vote on specific legislation. I shall request that that segment of tape be reviewed. - - - - - - - - 1F3 (Entry in races): I addressed these issues in the proposed new Rule 6 (Championship eligibility) and omitted your proposal. It appears as though the meeting of the T.C., formerly scheduled for Long Baech will be at Colorado Springs. It seems as though over half the Board was going to LB and Jerry and Richard thought it was a foolish expenditure given that the BOD meeting was following right afterwards. Why haven't you been yelling about anything lately? --- Phil PS: The UCI meeting was expensive and uneventful Please keep the first weekend in February open for a return to COS for the Officials Conclave.

PDheader:1988-01-28 10:09:00-08:00 15dbc1c2a9b12779e6d5aecc20af1617 ∂28-Jan-88 1009 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu superbars Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jan 88 10:09:21 PST Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 28 Jan 88 10:10:07 PST Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 28 Jan 88 10:08:34 PST Date: Thu, 28 Jan 88 11:44 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Mulitifarious? Subject: superbars To: les@sail.stanford.edu

Whenever you finish fiddling with the Item 24 amendment, please send me a copy and I will insert it in the agenda supplement as a replacement for 24 a & b. I put in a deletion of the USOC sports medicine hotline from the medical control rules and added the missing text in item 52[a], so that it will read: "The fee to enter a race which is part of a prize series is determined only by the category and type of that particular race, and not the total number of days of racing for the prize series." BTW, it seems to me that series prizes should be prorated over the race series in arriving at permit fees. The Schedule of Fees is silent on this issue and I observe that some promoters are scamming the Federation by basing their permit fees on the prizes in each race and ignoring the series prizes because the fee structure permits that! Think I should draft a fix? On looking harder at Item 29, it appears to me that it ignores cyclocross, time trials, mountain bike races, and everything else other than road, criterium, and track races. To put this another way, under the proposed categorization, there is no way to have a Category B cyclocross race and only one way to have a Cat. A cyclocross: put on the national championships! It would be more sensible, I think, to delete all references to criteriums in Item 29 and interpret "road race" in its broad sense to include criteriums, time trials, cyclocross, and whatnot. Incidentally, we probably should at some point divide cycling (like all Gaul) into three parts: track, road, and off-road, with the last including cyclocross, mountain bikes, and BMX. In fact, as long as we are going to propose a restructuring of the racing rules by having a section on stage racing, maybe we should also stick in a section on off-road racing now, with just one subspecies so far: cyclocross. Hmm; it might be more accurate to call it "off-track."

PDheader:1988-02-02 20:27:00-08:00 236241184d431ef9be891e103e4361aa ∂02-Feb-88 2027 LES Flush the Superbowl! To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 6 Jan 88 23:59 CST.]

Your numerology looks pretty reasonable, though I note that Minnesota somehow found its way into a grossly over-represented region. Whether or not some kind of reapportionment passes, we should look into dividing California-Nevada, like Gaul, into three parts. This should probably be taken up in the Fall, with adequate notice to the interested parties so that they can execute their fuss. Cheers

PDheader:1988-03-16 11:58:00-08:00 f4b70b148bf54a721e434dc4e43530ec ∂16-Mar-88 1158 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkc@squid.tn.cornell.edu training race permits Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 88 11:58:14 PST Received: from cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef) id AA05013; Wed, 16 Mar 88 10:10:08 pst Received: from squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU by cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (5.54/4.30) id AA05325; Wed, 16 Mar 88 12:50:24 EST Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 12:37:49 est Received: by squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU (1.2/1.1nn-Program-of-Computer-Graphics) id AA17503; Wed, 16 Mar 88 12:37:49 est Message-Id: <8803161737.AA17503@squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU> From: mkc@squid.tn.cornell.edu (Mitch) To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: training race permits

I just send this, but something bad happened with the mail here, so I'm sending it again just in case. If you got it the first time, then whatever happened, it must not have been *that* bad! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the subject of registering club rides in order to have them covered by the USCF insurance, our local club, Finger Lakes Cycling Club is also trying to wade through the confusion and register our "training races." I read carefully your answer to the BRC, and last night I flipped back and forth through the rule book looking for something that described our situation. I'm not sure, but maybe I found it. Each season, we have a series of "Tuesday night training races." That's the name what they've become known by. Everyone is welcome, and we divide into two groups, A and B, allowing people to seed themselves. Typically, the A's consist of cat 2, 3, some stronger 4's, a few vets, and sometimes one or two of the stronger women. The B's consist of the rest of the 4's, vets, women, and unlicensed racers. At times, there are unlicensed racers that are plenty strong enough to keep up with the A's, and they are not discouraged from riding A, since the emphasis is on training, and learning to ride fast in a group safely. A couple years ago we had a pro triathlete training with us, and there are several "ex-racers" who are plenty strong, but don't race on weekends anymore, so don't bother to get licenses. The other administrative problem that I'm seeing in the rules is the thing with everyone being licensed with the same club. Most of the licensed racers in our club are licensed with another club in a nearby town for team racing purposes. Also, this being a college town, we have some Cornell riders who are licensed with various clubs across the country that they race with during the summer, but we welcome them to our training races when they are in town. The thing here is: we welcome people who are "racing members" of other clubs to our training races, and strongly request them to become members of the FLCC if they plan to keep coming. We are all friends, and nearly everyone that participates joins the club. It would not be a problem to require FLCC membership, but it would be a big problem to require "racing membership," i.e. listing FLCC as the racing club on the USCF license. Now, as I read through the rule book, I'm not sure how we could register these "races." According to the definition of a race, these are not races, because there are no prizes. They can't be issued permits as "club rides" because the section describing these permits says that all licensed riders taking part must be licensed as a member of a single club. Ok, that seems to leave it up to the undefined category "SPECIAL CLUB EVENT." The event permit section (p.25) says that special club events may be open to the public. Could this be what we're after? Ah, and now one more question mark just crept up. I just spoke again with our club president, because I can't find anything at all in the rule book that tells what the benefits of getting an event permit are. Up to now, we've been assuming that in so doing, we could fall under the insurance that covers the promotor (club officers) against being sued. I don't see mention of insurance anywhere at all in the rule book. Is this in fact a benefit of getting an even permit? Is there a publication that describes the insurance coverage? The club president doesn't recall ever receiving anything like that. Subject: Climb every mountain Lots of question, I know. We'd gratefully appreciate any light you can shed on all this, Les. ---------------- Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent -Mitch Collinsworth mitch@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu

PDheader:1988-03-16 12:07:00-08:00 2576bfc90f3cedacf3420d7623b0733a ∂16-Mar-88 1207 cmacfarl@SOCRATES.BBN.COM USCF training race info... Received: from SOCRATES.BBN.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 88 12:06:50 PST Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 18:18:32 EST From: Craig MacFarlane <cmacfarl@SOCRATES.BBN.COM> To: les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Subject: USCF training race info...

Hi Les, I think I met you at the Wheat Thins race in S.F or Davis, CA. Anyway, I am still unclear how we need to restructure our races, what it would then be labeled, and which form I should then fill out. It will be impossible to get the hundreds of entrants to join the club. So I think that a 'club ride' is out. I think that I could get the B race split into licensed and non-licensed races. Besides the insurance, what are the benefits for being a sanctioned series? Some of the club's board members don't think it is worth the effort for us. I think it is, but need more arguments. Thanks a lot for you help, and I hope you don't mind me mailing this directly to you. If it is possible I could call you about our situation here. Thanks again, Craig Macfarlane BRC - President Cambridge, MA (617) 873-2711

PDheader:1988-03-20 00:56:00-08:00 b064df016209f8e5d68cd0876c0f1156 ∂20-Mar-88 0056 LES re: training race permits To: mkc@SQUID.TN.CORNELL.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 16 Mar 88 12:37:49 est.]

Actually, just your second message got through. I regret to report that there is nothing in the USCF rules that fits the kind of event that you describe, unless you forego any kind of awards on the basis of relative performance. The "special club event" is intended to cover mass participation activities, not races. If there were no awards, then in accordance with Bylaw K, Section 2(a), it would not be a bicycle race, hence you could run it then as a special club event. The other possible way to go is to separate the licensed and unlicensed riders in all massed start events, so that you are putting on a combination of Federation races and citizens races (per Bylaw K, Sections 2(e) and 2(i)). As you know, licensed and unlicensed riders may be permitted to compete together in USCF time trial events. Yes, the primary reason for taking out an event permit is to obtain liability insurance. Your district rep should have some information on what the coverage is; if he doesn't, you might be able to get some answers from Andy Bohlmann in the USCF office at (719) 578-4581. For what it is worth, I have been trying to get information about insurance, especially including the amount of the surcharge, placed in the Rulebook. So far, my efforts have been blocked by a combination of the staff's desire for "flexibility" and the belief by certain directors that insurance rates may again suddenly increase greatly. I blieve that this is nonsense and hope to get the policies changed before long. Good luck -Les Earnest

PDheader:1988-03-20 01:18:00-08:00 aaf557429baef3cf304e14df0d8f075a ∂20-Mar-88 0118 LES re: USCF training race info... To: cmacfarl@SOCRATES.BBN.COM [In reply to message sent Tue, 15 Mar 88 18:18:32 EST.]

Yes, I did the Wheat Thins races here the last two years. Insurance is the main reason for having both the Federation and citizens races included in your race permit. If that isn't worth it to you, then alternatives are to get race permits for just the events in which USCF riders compete or to hold just club races. Still another way around the issue is to give no awards on the basis of relative performance, so that the events are not bicycle races as defined by Bylaw L, Section 2(a). You could then run them as unsanctioned events or, if you want USCF insurance, as "special club events." Insurance is a primary advantage of running the events under USCF permits. I trust that you are not contemplating running bike races that involve USCF riders without a race permit -- that would lead to an unhappy confrontation. There were a few clusters of high evaluations (all 7's) that were a little questionable, but for the most part I am satisfied with the work that people have put into this project. I hope one of these schemes meets your needs. IMPARTAL Partial .. Impartial Les Earnest Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1 .2 .2 .2 Low Rating 1 1 .2 .2 .4 2 10 2.2 2.2 2.7 3 25 5.6 5.6 8.3 4 56 12.5 12.5 20.8 5 155 34.7 34.7 55.5 High Rating 6 138 30.9 30.9 86.4 7 61 13.6 13.6 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0

PDheader:1988-03-21 08:20:00-08:00 570c714b26fd0a44d650a0e84f1594c8 ∂21-Mar-88 0820 mkc@squid.tn.cornell.edu RE: re: training race permits Received: from cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 88 08:20:35 PST Received: from squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU by cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (5.54/4.30) id AA20734; Mon, 21 Mar 88 11:20:38 EST Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 11:18:52 est Received: by squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU (1.2/1.1nn-Program-of-Computer-Graphics) id AA20952; Mon, 21 Mar 88 11:18:52 est Message-Id: <8803211618.AA20952@squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU> From: mkc@squid.tn.cornell.edu (Mitch) To: les@sail.stanford.edu, mkc@squid.tn.cornell.edu Subject: RE: re: training race permits

OK, I thought I said, but maybe I forgot. The weekly training races I described do not have awards of any kind. Relative performance or otherwise. While we call them races, and ride them like races, they're really just a weekly speed workout. So it looks like we can go for the special club event status. I'll forward the information to the club president, and on behalf of him and the rest of us, we appreciate your help with the definitions and such. Like I said before, "special club event" is mentioned a few times, but never defined in the rule book. I agree with the idea to include information relevant to insurance in the rule book. I can understand a desire for flexibility as well as a belief/fear of rising insurance rates, but why can't it just be printed along with a note saying in effect "This information is accurate as of such-and-such date and is subject to change. For up-to-date information, contact ...". Then publish info about changes in Cycling USA. That not only gives you the basic info, but tells you who you can talk to to find out more. Again thanks for the info, and I want you to know that I read with great interest your notes on the net about federation goings-on and pass them around to the racing gang here in Ithaca. We appreciate all you're doing for us and hope your efforts to bring some badly-needed changes are successful. -Mitch Collinsworth Secretary, Finger Lakes Cycling Club mitch@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu

PDheader:1988-03-21 12:46:00-08:00 3ab5741cfec498ad783bffd21780b8ab ∂21-Mar-88 1246 LES re: re: training race permits To: mkc@SQUID.TN.CORNELL.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 21 Mar 88 11:18:52 est.]

Sounds good, but remember to not use the word "race" in either the permit application or in advertising the events, and be sure that awards don't somehow become a part of the proceedings. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1988-04-05 07:25:00-07:00 73754e63f59129e13b5bd548dea11a8e ∂05-Apr-88 0725 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu opinions and mail Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 07:25:50 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 5 Apr 88 07:25:30 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 5 Apr 88 07:24:05 PDT Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 21:16 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: opinions and mail To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

Thank you for the missing early chapters of the apocrypha. ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 I have reached the 14th page of new legislation, it is complicated, so I will send it by post. Seriously, how about the term "cross-country cycling?" I don't like "mountain bike", it's too specific. The term "off-road" is already in use and isn't entirely right, that is roads of some sort, be they gravel, unimproved, or paved are all in use. It seems to me that there is may be a similar relationship between cyclo-cross and "mountain bike" as there is between criterium and road racing. The 2K4(c) proposition carries out that analogy, in that in a criterium you can work together, in a road race riders may not. I should say that I put this in because NORBA rules said that slower rider must always cede to faster, and while that may be polite, I don't see why tactically in a narrow or twisty section it should be a requirement. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent I confess that officials probably would have a hard time seeing a violoation in any event, at least in some areas of a course. NORBA also maintained that a walking or pushing rider should give way to a rider on a bicycle. I would think faster is whoever is faster at the moment they become near to one another. Fraysse is having a meeting around 5 pm Friday with some mountain bike riders to discuss various issues. He was very happy to hear that I had started up this project. As for the width at the finish, that is what the international rule draft proposed. Better to be too wide than too narrow at the finish, I suppose? If the terrain is a little bumpy, it may be better to give the finishing riders a little maneuvering room, even if there are not so many of them. (Phil) ---------------- 0 1 .2 .2 .2 Low Rating 1 4 .9 .9 1.1 2 13 2.9 2.9 4.0 3 36 8.1 8.1 12.1 4 81 18.1 18.1 30.2 5 154 34.5 34.5 64.7 High Rating 6 104 23.3 23.3 87.9 7 54 12.1 12.1 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 Could you review this and favor me with an immediate comment?

PDheader:1988-04-05 12:09:00-07:00 b10fd0bc8702bd1de35ba2a2af359933 ∂05-Apr-88 1209 LES re: opinions and mail To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 4 Apr 88 21:16 CST.]

Bitnet seems none too swift. The message that you posted at 21:16 PM your time got here at 9:25 AM your time. I knew it was coming, having received a call from Tom Nee last night, but expected it to show up at the usual witching hour. In fact, I was logged in and waiting, but no show. Your draft looks reasonable to me as far as it goes. I think that we should also strongly recommend that tube constraints be specified as a ratio of wide diameter to small diameter, NOT an absolute dimension. This issue could be taken up in a separate communication, however. The UCI Technical Commission seems to be suffering from general incompetence, both in assessing technical issues and in writing legislation that says what they mean. That is an even more important problem to solve, but it will require astute political action.

PDheader:1988-04-05 12:57:00-07:00 2cd4338e3d37f02103d7d746a2e8d49d ∂05-Apr-88 1257 TVR@CCRMA-F4 Bicycles and insurance Received: from CCRMA-F4 by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with PUP; 05-Apr-88 12:57 PDT Date: 05 Apr 88 1255 PDT From: Tovar <TVR%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Bicycles and insurance To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU CC: TVR%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU

I was chatting with Ellen Fletcher (Western Wheelers) about so-called no-fault insurance. She hadn't read the initiative yet, so she didn't know the answer. It turns out that when i called, she was studying her club's insurance, so i took the liberty of giving her your number for questions on this. The question i was looking for an answer on was what effect the no-fault initiative would have on bicyclists, particularly on those who don't own a motor vehicle? Would the bicyclist then have to sue (and give up about 30% of damages) or is there some other provision for this? Would a bicyclist be wise to carry insurance under the proposed law to protect him/herself against the sort of thing which happened to me? --- Tovar P.S. I'm not sure i suffer from taxapathy as much as realize that i could earn considerably more than i could possibly get from tax hacking by simply learning about investing in a more intelligent manner. Nonetheless, i did find the topic interesting and am passing on a copy of it to a friend of mine.

PDheader:1988-04-05 15:42:00-07:00 af7422d6bfc3231cd419809feeea30e8 ∂05-Apr-88 1542 LES re: Bicycles and insurance To: TVR@CCRMA-F4

[In reply to message sent 05 Apr 88 1255 PDT.] Good question. Not having seen the legislation, I have no direct knowledge of how it would work. I would expect that the "no fault" clause applies only between automobiles. It certainly is true that cars occasionally run into houses and could not reasonably be exempted from liability for such damages. In other words, I expect that liabilities for losses other than those of another automobile would be handled in the same way as at present. Actually, "cross-country" could be used, as you suggest, in that the origins of "cyclocross" have been largely forgotten. As you no doubt know, the "X" in BMX also stands for "X-country." If we were to call this category "cross-country" then we should find another name for the event I dubbed "cross country time trial" (Rule 2I). I have met Ellen Fletcher a couple of times at bike races. I would be happy to share my limited knowledge with her. In any case, I think that we need names for both NORBA-style racing and the generic class that includes it, cyclocross, and BMX. For NORBA-style, how about "mountain racing" (acknowledging that we don't much care what kind of bike they use) and for the generic class, maybe "cross country," "dirt," or "land racing." Les

PDheader:1988-04-09 18:12:00-07:00 25760f8cc97ef29c5fa5120726e3ef18 ∂09-Apr-88 1812 Mailer Captain Horatio Hornblower says: don't bike on the sidewalk To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

The best way to avoid uncertainty in encounters with cars is to not ride on the sidewalk. Or on a bike path. Not even on the separate bike routes that Palo Alto offers for going through railroad underpasses -- if you do, you are likely to discover that you are trapped on the sidewalk at the far end and must make a right turn in order to reach a ramp that lets you back on the street. My time-tested way of riding under the underpasses is to take a lane and ride in the center of it, so as not to tempt drivers to try to pass. If there is only one lane, so be it. I ride through as quickly as possible, but don't take any crap from following cars. If they lean on their horn, I signal my assessment of their position and start riding slower. You can choose your own signal; you can guess what I use. Some of you may recall that a decade or so ago the Palo Alto City Council decided that anyone who rides a bicycle must be a child and they passed an ordinance requiring that all bicylists must ride on the sidewalk. A friend of mine named John Forester consistently defied the law, took his accumulated traffic tickets to court, and beat City Hall. The ordinance was subsequently repealed and the cyclists organized themselves so as to prevent a recurrence of such nonsense. Ellen Fletcher, who is a bicycle activist, is on the Palo Alto City Council to keep them straight these days. John Forester went on to write and publish "Effective Cycling," the definitive modern guide to cycling conduct [MIT Press, 1984], and has written other important books and articles on the subject. He no doubt got some of his talent from his father, British author C.S. Forester, who wrote the Captain Horatio Hornblower series of swashbuckling novels, some of which turned into movies. Les Earnest CORRECT Incorrect .. Correct

PDheader:1988-04-09 21:15:00-07:00 a894ae9e8d9c8b14e051494342728516 ∂09-Apr-88 2115 Mailer Re: Bicycle tickets To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

Peter Karp seems to be an unbounded source of questions, e.g.: > So Les, if one is given a ticket while on one's bicycle, it would appear > that one is not required to produce a driver's license or any other kind > of id? If the police accept this, it would appear that nothing stops you > from lying about your name and address? If they don't accept this, are > they permitted to arrest you for the traffic violation in question? Correct, you do not have to produce ID; also, the police do not have to accept your statement of who you are and can arrest you. However, a surprisingly large number of police are a bit gullible. One frequent mistake that they make is to look at the bike, see a person's name written on the frame, and assume that it is the name of the rider. The policeman then writes up the citation for "Bob Jackson" or whatever is the brand name, the cyclist gives a bogus address, signs the citation and pedals off into the sunset. Eddy Merckx, the famous Belgian cyclist who won the Tour de France five times and who now sells a line of bicycles under his name, was once warned that he should never set foot in the United States because there are warrants out for his arrest in every major city here. > I suppose they can always look you up through your bicycle registration > sticker if they happen to think of this. Not me. I painted over that sucker long ago. > Also, do insurance companies penalize you for moving violations acquired on > a bicycle? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Low Rating 1 5 1.1 1.1 1.1 2 12 2.7 2.7 3.8 3 32 7.2 7.2 11.0 4 79 17.7 17.7 28.6 5 149 33.3 33.3 62.0 High Rating 6 125 28.0 28.0 89.9 7 45 10.1 10.1 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 No, cycling citations are not supposed to appear on your driving record. Of course, clerical errors sometimes occur. Incidentally, I understand that California began a few years ago to sell a copy of anyone's driving record to anyone who puts up a few bucks. EFFECTVE Ineffective .. Effective Les Earnest Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 4 .9 .9 .9 Low Rating 1 3 .7 .7 1.6 2 14 3.1 3.1 4.7 3 31 6.9 6.9 11.6 4 95 21.3 21.3 32.9 5 137 30.6 30.6 63.5 High Rating 6 104 23.3 23.3 86.8 7 59 13.2 13.2 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0

PDheader:1988-04-13 20:28:00-07:00 21c96f32724eb86faa121fb81ce101e5 ∂13-Apr-88 2028 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Agendas Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 20:28:15 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 13 Apr 88 20:27:54 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 13 Apr 88 20:26:02 PDT Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 22:27 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Agendas To: les@sail.stanford.edu

PDheader:1988-04-13 21:22:00-07:00 ba1dfcbd1e8c8d19a2508510f936b975 ∂13-Apr-88 2122 LES re: Agendas To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 13 Apr 88 22:27 CST.]

I don't see the conflict between the T.C. and Appeals. The T.C. does not _make_ policy with respect to eligibility to compete, which is the only thing that riders may appeal. The T.C. _does_ interpret Racing Rules, which is also what the Appeals Board does on occasion, which is why I think they should be merged. Incidentally, Susan wants me to do the Track Natz appeals, which doesn't thrill me a lot -- Houston in the Summer? Ugh! I didn't think of conflict of interest as a way out. I have several Constitutional things that I want to fix and had better get going on it, as well as finding a club cover.

PDheader:1988-04-14 13:44:00-07:00 d70ea4d0ebb1f23da941fc251f2b1fe0 ∂14-Apr-88 1344 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Not the General Miller Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 13:44:06 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 14 Apr 88 13:43:44 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 14 Apr 88 13:35:02 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 15:32 CST From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: Not the General Miller To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu Further Information on category upgrading:

Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 5 1.1 1.1 1.1 Low Rating 1 2 .4 .4 1.6 2 14 3.1 3.1 4.7 3 35 7.8 7.8 12.5 4 80 17.9 17.9 30.4 5 129 28.9 28.9 59.3 High Rating 6 119 26.6 26.6 85.9 7 63 14.1 14.1 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 The French Cycling Federation regulations specify the following: Valid Cases 447 Missing Cases 0 Actually, General Miller has been replaced as Secretary General/ Executive Director (yes, I've seen it slashed) tw%~&*&~%$ three times twice by the same person. Namely, Barron Pittenger is now the Secretary General, having been acting SG/ED until Harvey Schiller took over, lasting for something like a week, and then resigning only to be replaced (permanently) by Barron. The USOC has a strong-willed President, who reminds some Colorado Observers of Rob L-a (whose name shall not pass my lips). That is he is said to get into difficulty by staking out territory that cannot be easily defended.

PDheader:1988-04-20 14:51:00-07:00 d5dddd8181a7462435c080779066684e ∂20-Apr-88 1451 L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Civil Liberties 5a: Fuzzy racial concepts made precise Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Apr 88 14:51:28 PDT Date: Wed 20 Apr 88 14:49:44-PDT From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: re: Civil Liberties 5a: Fuzzy racial concepts made precise To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 20 Apr 88 00:03:00-PDT Message-ID: <12392047455.110.L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>

thanx for info re copying. after I sent the message, I realized that you were on SAIL. I'll check the documentation. By the way, I'm applying to Sports Illustrated. They require me to try to write something for them (that way, they can see unedited work). One of their suggestions was for a profile of an up-and-coming athlete in a minor sport. I wanted to do something other than T&F. Swimming and cycling come to mind in this Oly year. Any suggestions? -------

PDheader:1988-04-20 15:15:00-07:00 a1118e4e903ed718625c4ed6de0f2d04 ∂20-Apr-88 1515 LES re: Civil Liberties 5a: Fuzzy racial concepts made precise To: L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed 20 Apr 88 14:49:44-PDT.]

> One of their suggestions was for a profile of an up-and-coming athlete > in a minor sport. I wanted to do something other than T&F. Sorry, cycling doesn't qualify because it is a _major_ sport. :-] It actually is. On a worldwide basis, cycling is the second most popular sport as measured by spectator participation. Soccer is the most popular. Football, baseball, and basketball, are further down. I'm pretty sure that track and field beats some of them, but I don't remember the list exactly. If you would like to interview an up-and-coming athlete from a major sport, I can probably find one hereabouts. Let me think about it a bit.

PDheader:1988-04-23 17:11:00-07:00 47f5a728b4a71ded8c041c873a782dff ∂23-Apr-88 1711 L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU drug testing in amateur sports, cycling, etc. Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Apr 88 17:10:53 PDT Date: Sat 23 Apr 88 17:07:11-PDT From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: drug testing in amateur sports, cycling, etc. To: les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Message-ID: <12392858909.120.L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>

You appear to be an important person in the world of cycling. Who are you besides the associate chairman of the CS dept? More importantly, I think talking with you about the Games, drug testing, etc would be invaluable. I only have four hours time on LOTS, so email is not the most effective method. Could I meet with you sometime? (Cycling seems to have a lot in common with T&F, probably because it's an amateur sport. You should have seen all the stuff about drug testing an allegations of rigged tests in the Track and Field Writers of America (TAFWA) newsletter this month. Moreover, I'm no longer really a track & field writer, even though I belong to the association, so any contacts I can get with the sports world are important.) When will the cycling team be selected? I see that the Coors race is scheduled for August 8. That seems late. The athletics team will be chosen in July. After that, there will only be some tuneup meets for those who made the team. There will be a series of races in California and some in Japan. Do you expect that choosing the team this late will have a deleterious effect on the results at the Games? Are you going to the Games? I blew my chance when I left Track & Field News. I hope someday to make the games. -------

PDheader:1988-04-23 22:06:00-07:00 f7d56f697be6b32146a592a28f3d1c60 ∂23-Apr-88 2206 LES re: drug testing in amateur sports, cycling, etc. To: L.LEE-Y@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat 23 Apr 88 17:07:11-PDT.]

First, regarding your inquiry about an interviewee, I think that a fellow named Daryl Price would be a good choice. I am currently trying to get a telephone number for him. Price is a first-year senior who has a plausible shot at the Olympic Team. As a junior, he blew away the competition -- he was National Champion in the Junior Road Race last year. Actually, I'm no longer Associate Chairman of the department; I resigned when it looked as though that job was turning into fulltime bureaucracy. In response to your question about my cycling involvement, I've been a cyclist since age four, but never heard of bike racing until 1972 when one of my sons dragged me into it. I started out racing, then did some officiating. When I saw how awful the Rulebook was, I offered to rewrite it and did. When a local rider who was a four-time national champion got diddled by an incompetent officer of the USCF, I decided to run for the board of directors (that was 1979). I got elected, then immediately ran against the guy who had done the dirty deed. Knocked him off too. Of course, I was then stuck with doing his job. Over the last decade, I've done several different things, including Chairman Board of Control (operational control of all bike racing in the U.S.), Legislation Committee Chairman, and Technical Committee Chairman. I'm currently just a Director. I would be happy to chat with you sometime. I plan to be on campus each afternoon next week except Thursday. You can reach me via email or on extension 3-9729. The Coors Classic is actually an open pro race now -- 1984 was the last year it was held as an open amateur race. The U.S. Olympic Cycling Team will be selected at the National Championships in Spokane around the last week of July. No, I don't plan to go to the Olympics this year. It was fun being an official at the last ones, though.

PDheader:1988-04-27 00:57:00-07:00 89b6f11c969ff14487cddfbdca082c1e ∂27-Apr-88 0057 LES re: meeting to talk about sports, esp. cycling To: L.LEE-Y@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue 26 Apr 88 21:21:18-PDT.]

Yes, that's it. BTW, I finally got a phone number for Daryl Price: 408 425-1635, which is allegedly in Aptos. Bikies often travel a lot during the racing season, so you might not find him there at any given time.

PDheader:1988-04-29 10:43:00-07:00 3b4d9263fa366b79665f91f822dacf58 ∂29-Apr-88 1043 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:shekita@cs.wisc.edu USCF question Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 10:43:39 PDT Received: from provolone.cs.wisc.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef) id AA00789; Fri, 29 Apr 88 10:42:54 pdt Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 12:42:37 CDT From: shekita@cs.wisc.edu (Eugene Shekita) Message-Id: <8804291742.AA02837@provolone.cs.wisc.edu> Received: by provolone.cs.wisc.edu; Fri, 29 Apr 88 12:42:37 CDT To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: USCF question

Les, I have a USCF rules question. If a first year vet (a vet IV?) places in 3 top three's or 6 top sixes, does he become a vet III? Would a vet III (if there is such a thing) be permitted to race in senior III races? thanks in advance Gene PS: I thought that early tax payment analysis you did in misc.invest was nice.

PDheader:1988-04-29 11:02:00-07:00 5ec5d0afedf16b745d901305fa6195a7 ∂29-Apr-88 1102 LES re: USCF question To: shekita@CS.WISC.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 29 Apr 88 12:42:37 CDT.]

Gene, As you can determine from the Rulebook, there is no vet anything anymore. There are two dimensions to the classification scheme: age and category. Category is _absolute_, not relative to age group. Thus, in order to compete in Cat. 3, you must qualify in the same way as all other Cat. 3s, which may be by experience (usually, a year of racing) or by placings in _qualifying_ races. "Qualifying" means that the level of competition is representative of that class for _all_ seniors in that category. It could be that some masters races would meet that standard, but the unambiguous way to qualify is to do it in Senior 4 races. The determination of what is a "qualifying" race is up to the district rep. 4 to 3 - 1 Victory 3 to 2 - 3 Victories 2 to 1 - 4 Victories Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 4 .9 .9 .9 Low Rating 1 6 1.3 1.3 2.2 2 21 4.7 4.7 6.9 3 45 10.1 10.1 17.0 4 102 22.8 22.8 39.8 5 136 30.4 30.4 70.2 High Rating 6 72 16.1 16.1 86.4 7 61 13.6 13.6 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 Les They further provide that a rider lacking the required number of victories who has otherwise manifested superior ability may be upgraded. P.S. Glad you liked the tax tip. The British Cycling Federation has a somewhat more complicated system (Not surprisingly) based upon points: From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Thu Apr 28 00:26:58 PDT 1988 Article 3824 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Solution to a Common Gearing Problem Message-ID: <20392@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 28 Apr 88 00:00:08 GMT References: <7749@ihlpa.ATT.COM> <2891@ihlpe.ATT.COM> Sender: news@labrea.STANFORD.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 26 Keywords: "Junior" gearing In article <2891@ihlpe.ATT.COM> dcon@ihlpe.UUCP (Dave Connet) writes: >One of the reasons that Juniors have restricted gears is to keep >them from pushing a gear that is too large. The bones (etc.) are >still growing and serious damage could occur. This is a way of >limiting what the top gear is. This is an old coach's tale for which there seems to be no supporting medical evidence. Large gears _do_ require higher pedal forces at any given speed, but not nearly as high as the forces involved in climbing. If high pedal forces were bad for growing bones, all juniors would have been crippled on their first hillclimb. In other words, this theory is bullshit. Why are there gear limits then? A faintly plausible theory is that it is better from a training standpoint to learn to spin first, before learning to push. > [more text] >I heard some rumors that blocking a gear is no longer legal. >(By blocking I mean setting the derailleur so it can't shift into >that gear.) Comments Les? True, though their is an escape clause for dumb riders in their first race. See USCF Racing Rule 1I5. Les Earnest, Stanford University Phone: 415 723-9729 Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les Stanford, CA 94305 From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Sat Apr 30 19:33:11 PDT 1988 Article 3834 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Bicyclists Message-ID: <20403@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 28 Apr 88 08:03:37 GMT References: <961@nuchat.UUCP> <10500010@silver> <577@galaxy> <Apr.27.15.15.19.1988.5061@topaz.rutgers.edu> <6972@bellcore.bellcore.com> Sender: news@labrea.STANFORD.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 44 Xref: labrea rec.autos:11386 rec.bicycles:3834 In article <Apr.27.15.15.19.1988.5061@topaz.rutgers.edu> rinehart@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart) writes: >The fact is that roads were built for cars. In article <6972@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: >Historically, you are wrong here. The first roads were paved to >make cycling easier. Then motorists found they benefitted too. >But the organization that lobbied for paved roads before the turn >of the century was called the League of American Wheelmen and it >exists today, lobbying for other concerns of cyclists. It can >verify that roads were originally paved for bicycles. While it _is_ true that LAW led the fight for good roads before the cars came along to run them off, it is _not_ the same LAW that is around these days and occasionally calls itself something else. In fact the modern LAW is the _third_ organization to use that name. Before the original LAW took on the fight for better roads, they had to win the right of cyclists to use the roads -- they were orginally excluded from many public roads "for the safety of horsemen." Their first major success was the Haddonfield (New Jersey) Turnpike case, which they won in 1884. The original LAW was also racist. In 1890 they voted to bar negroes from membership; nevertheless, they were permitted to race in many parts of the country. By 1897, LAW had 102,636 members, including the Wright Brothers, Commodore Vaderbilt, and Diamond Jim Brady, to name a few luminaries. From there on it was all downhill as the bicycle fad was overrun by the motorcycle-car fad. By 1902, LAW membership was down to 8,629 members. LAW became an empty shell of dedicated officers whose constituency was gone by 1912 and the remnants gave up in 1924. The second LAW was apparently formed in 1937 and came out of the bicycle revival that was associated with the Depression. It faded away in the postwar affluence of the mid-'50s. The modern LAW was apparently formed in Chicago around 1965 and included some of the people who had been in the second LAW. Les Earnest, Stanford University Phone: 415 723-9729 Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les Stanford, CA 94305

PDheader:1988-05-03 17:24:00-07:00 ca4f8ed564d0e86a46683d0f81d8c123 ∂03-May-88 1724 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu comments Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 17:24:34 PDT Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 3 May 88 17:25:14 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 3 May 88 17:22:26 PDT Date: Tue, 3 May 88 16:25 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> Subject: comments To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

3 to 2 - 20 points 2 to 1 - 45 points Races under 50 kms are given points for 3 places: 3, 2, 1 Races from 50 to 130 kms are given points for 6 places: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Races over 130 kms are given points for 10 places: 15, 13, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 International or Star Trophy races give points for 15 places: 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Any BCF appointed rider competing internationally receives 5 points for each day of racing competed I am waiting with great anticipation for your comments on the remainder of the legislation draft. Maybe I'll call so we can chat. Of course on some of them you are out to lunch and possibly all wet. I have been surprised that on the kilometer restart other people have also had the same reaction as you, so my wording must not be clear, or else I am being fuzzy-headed. It goes like this: In the case of an "apparent" mishap, officials are to analyze the situation. If the the mishap is verified -- a broken part is found or a puncture is detected then a delayed restart is allowed. In other words, the rider has a grace period in which to make the repair and recover composure. If the incident did not constitute a mishap, nothing was broken, the rider didn't crash, etc. then the rider still may restart, but must do so immediately. A good modification to my proposal might be that the incident has to occur within a certain distance of the start (30 meters, half lap). I am trying to be sympathetic with a situation (pulled foot) which I have found to be devastating for the athlete, while also dealing with possible tactical abuses of restarting. Can you think of whatever few additional words are necessary to clarify my proposal, or are you cruel and hard-hearted? From labrea!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Ed_Eric_Mitchell Thu May 5 20:02:35 PDT 1988 Article 3977 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Ed_Eric_Mitchell >From: Ed_Eric_Mitchell@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Sick of Lard-Ass Car Drivers Message-ID: <5110@cup.portal.com> Date: 5 May 88 00:31:38 GMT References: <961@nuchat.UUCP> <10500010@silver> <577@galaxy> <Apr.27.15.15.19.1988.5061@topaz.rutgers.edu> <6972@bellcore.bellcore.com> <2941@hqda-ai.ARPA> <1151@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> <9478@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <2117@quacky.mips.COM> Distribution: na Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 15 Xref: labrea rec.autos:11666 rec.bicycles:3977 XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.1420 In 1987, more people were killed in bicycle accidents than all aircraft accidents combined (including light plane, commuter, air taxi, aerobatic and airline). Also, last year, an estimated 1.5 million bicycle-related injuries were treated by *physicians* - this doesn't include simple abrasions and bruises that you treated yourself. Ed Mitchell sun!portal!cup.portal.com!ed.mitchell P.S. I speak with the limited authority of having fractured a skull, broken ribs, fractured my right wrist and my left hand - all in separate bike accidents. When I broke my ribs I also broke my helmet. All but one accident was caused by roadway hazards. One was caused by group riding.

PDheader:1988-05-11 14:20:00-07:00 00a1276241dde00b6c00ad7b27369922 ∂11-May-88 1420 VAF@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Civil Liberties 30: Representative Governance -- IHPVA and Ball Games Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 14:20:55 PDT Date: Wed 11 May 88 14:20:38-PDT From: Vince Fuller <VAF@Score.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Civil Liberties 30: Representative Governance -- IHPVA and Ball Games To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU cc: VAF@Score.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 10 May 88 00:58:00-PDT Office: Pine Hall 167 Phone: 415-723-6860 Message-ID: <12397547180.36.VAF@Score.Stanford.EDU>

Do you know where I could get more information about the IHPVA and where I could get information about any commercial companies that build such craft? As one who's primary means of transportation is a bicycle, I am particularly interested in finding out about builders of recumbant bikes. Thanks, Vince Fuller -------

PDheader:1988-05-11 15:31:00-07:00 13b287d79fc870065906bf5eaa18d969 ∂11-May-88 1531 LES re: Civil Liberties 30: Representative Governance -- IHPVA and Ball Games To: VAF@SCORE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed 11 May 88 14:20:38-PDT.]

The address for joining, which costs $18 per year, is: IHPVA P.O. Box 51255 Indianapolis, IN 46251 There is a local shop that sells just recumbants, some of which come with fairings: Just Recumbants (yes, that's their name) 3300 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 phone: 424-0570 The last time I looked, they were open only on Saturdays. The current king-of-the-roost in HPVs is a company in Aptos or therabouts that made the record-holding Gold Rush and also makes the Easy Rider recumbant and Easy Racer HPV. The people at Just Recumbants can probably point you at them.

PDheader:1988-06-01 12:11:00-07:00 bb8465bfc6cd53b2dbeb500630cbf4b0 ∂01-Jun-88 1211 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Were you there? Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 12:11:40 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 1 Jun 88 12:12:36 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 1 Jun 88 00:23:29 PDT Date: Tue, 31 May 88 20:24 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Were you there? To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

CHIEFOFF Level as Chief Official Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 5 1.1 1.1 1.1 Low Rating 1 2 .4 .4 1.6 2 16 3.6 3.6 5.1 3 25 5.6 5.6 10.7 4 57 12.8 12.8 23.5 5 146 32.7 32.7 56.2 High Rating 6 122 27.3 27.3 83.4 7 74 16.6 16.6 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 Via the usual indirect route I have heard a story that you and Joan were off to the Palo Alto Police and City Council attempting to put an end to the 4Man (?) Corporate Time Trial. From the rumours on my end it sounds like a tactic which I would not encourage, but I imagine there is yet another side to the story. I assume this all relates to the Hiller memorandum which I was BCC'ed on. Comments?

PDheader:1988-06-01 12:44:00-07:00 95116de7608c539b0192983c128c7fe9 ∂01-Jun-88 1244 LES re: Were you there? To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 31 May 88 20:24 CDT.]

You seem to have heard a garbled account. Joan happened to be at a Los Altos Hills Town Council meeting when an item about approving the closure of some town roads for the FourMan event came up and she gave the Council her views on that proposal. It was clear that the town had not done its homework, as usual, and was not even aware that the race had been booted out of Woodside, the site of last year's race, because of that community's experiences with Mary Hiller. If somebody wants to make a ruckus out of that, I welcome the opportunity. My guess is that we are going to have to sue her anyway. Reapportionment I am about to put in the mail a proposed Southern California division and a modified version of the Stanford CC proposal that uses it. I also put together rider balance sheets in the same format for each of the main proposals and discovered that you and Ernie either did not do your homework or were trying to pull a fast one. Your proposals are out of balance in exactly the same way as the current apportionment, only slightly less so. That is, the Central Section would be substantially over-represented and the East somewhat. The modified Stanford CC proposal makes the three sections equal to within 0.7%, which I claim can't be beat. The principal differences from the earlier version are the California/Southwest-Southeast split and moving Arizona into the Central Section while leaving Utah in the West. Given the apparent superiority of this proposal, which admittedly incorporates elements from both the LegComm and original Stanford CC proposals, I am proposing that the committee unify on it. I am attaching balance sheets for each of the proposals for you to comtemplate. The six-section version of the Stanford scheme, if you would like to consider it, has about the same sectional deviations as yours, but has slightly better regional balance. -----------------

PDheader:1988-06-02 00:04:00-07:00 28fa2c8567efb47b271ffd79a9d4f270 ∂02-Jun-88 0004 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Deapportionment Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 00:04:23 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 2 Jun 88 00:05:19 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 2 Jun 88 00:04:19 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 00:54 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Deapportionment To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

The holder of a Category 1 or 2 license shall be required to gain each year, 30 or 6 points respectively, and failing which the rider reverts to the next lower category, with any points gained in the past year credited to the current year. -------------------- (from Phil, naturally) It looks like there is some merit to the BCF system, especially where it quantifies the downgrading system. Have you more comments? Once again we are back to our argument about whether it is more important for election regions to be formed soley on the basis of numeric equality or whether programmatic considerations ought to also be considered when forming regions and sections. It is certainly not the case that Ernie and I were pulling "a fast one". As you know by now, I would like election regions also to be useful for planning and program purposes, and so my threshold for approximately equality is elastic. It is not so flexible that it could justify keeping Colorado with California, nor uniting Arizona with Alaska, for that matter. -------------------- What constitutes "approximate equality" is ultimately a judgement or political call. Court cases have been literally all over the map as regards legislative and congressional apportionment. Good Job on the Legislation supplement, I hope we can get it adopted. Beth could be a big help with that. I think that it might be worthwhile to get copies post haste to the the Technical Commission. As I see it the Executive/Legislation Committee proposal differs from the "Stanford" proposal mainly in the following cases: Comments: Arizona moves from West to Central Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi move from East to Central Ohio moves from Central to East P. 4 Item 59 (b) Why Combine 1E2 and 1E1? Compare new part 1E1 (d) with current rule 1M7. Is the duplication necessary? P. 5 Item 59 (c) Why add chief judge to 1H6(b) number inspection? I need not restate the reasons why I do not accept the proposal. P. 6 2B10. Foul Riding, you left out the zig-zagging prohibition of the new FIAC stage race rules, perhaps for a good reason?; P. 6 2C4 (b) misspelling "break away" not "break way"

PDheader:1988-06-02 02:07:00-07:00 9744d09e05aeeed3ff1d1b9a62516042 ∂02-Jun-88 0207 LES re: Deapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Jun 88 00:54 CDT.]

P. 10 3C5. Team Classification, I recommend that it be subdivided into a form as follows: 3C5. Team Classification. Team general ... (a) If two or more teams make ... (b) If two or more teams have ... (c) Any team depleted ... You say: .Once again we are back to our argument about whether it is more .important for election regions to be formed soley on the basis .of numeric equality or whether programmatic considerations ought .to also be considered when forming regions and sections. It is .certainly not the case that Ernie and I were pulling "a fast one". .As you know by now, I would like election regions also to be .useful for planning and program purposes, and so my threshold for .approximately equality is elastic. That argument has already been settled for this year. There is no proposal on the agenda to take "programmatic considerations" into account, so that is not an issue. In fact, as I tried to make clear to you in our disucussions here, I will do my best in future years to prevent changing those criteria in the way you suggest. Your idea is muddled. The federal government learned to separate electoral and progammatic regions long ago. Congressional districts have nothing to do with either Naval districts or IRS regions, for example. If you want a USCF programmatic geographical structure, all you have to do is create one, or even two -- no legislation at all is needed! You say that your "threshold for approximately equality is elastic" but .It is not so flexible that it could justify keeping Colorado with .California, nor uniting Arizona with Alaska, for that matter. This is a very strange remark. I note that my proposal puts Arizona in a different section from Alaska in the interest of achieving representational balance, while your 3-section proposal would unite Arizona with Alaska -- i.e. it includes them in the same section, which is practically all that matters in Board elections. Regions rarely play a role in elections. As I recall, Regions have had no effect in the West since Zeke got in that way. .As I see it the Executive/Legislation Committee proposal differs .from the "Stanford" proposal mainly in the following cases: . . Arizona moves from West to Central . Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi move from East to Central . Ohio moves from Central to East I am curious about how the sketch that was presented to the Legislation Committee became the "Executive/Legislation Committee proposal." Given that that proposal has been incomplete until now, it sounds as though the Executive Committee may have bought a pig in a poke. Your list of differences between the proposals somehow overlooks the main difference: the "Stanford" proposal balances within 0.7% while the LegComm proposal would perpetuate a 7% under-representation in the West. I think that I can build a nice campaign around a 10-to-1 improvement. .I need not restate the reasons why I do not accept the proposal. Of course you need not, but I invite you to try. Is there some identifiable way in which the existing LegComm proposal is better than the one I am pushing? The Constitution gives criteria for apportionment. My proposal beats the LegComm 3-section proposal according to those criteria, therefore it should win. Incidentally after doing the mailing today, I noticed that my 6-section scheme would actually have been better balanced if the central sections were sliced East and West, as you had them, instead of North and South. Given that you apparently would rather fight than switch, however, there seems to be no point in my trying to fix that. I really do not understand where you are coming from on this issue. If you have a hidden agenda, I invite you to state it.

PDheader:1988-06-02 13:36:00-07:00 78ecc71d1a05f930e2abdaa24ba283a1 ∂02-Jun-88 1336 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU RE: re: Deapportionment Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 13:36:14 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 2 Jun 88 13:37:11 PDT From: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 2 Jun 88 13:35:58 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 15:26 cst Subject: RE: re: Deapportionment To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU X-Vms-To: IN%"LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU"

From the Music Man ( I think ): "I couldn't make myself plainer if I were a Quaker on my Day off!" I want electoral regions which break down into areas which have a programmatic basis. I do not want multiple programs multiple regions. I think it is possible to do both, and that it is very desireable. The whole history of the USCF is one of confusion when it comes to keeping track of little details, let alone grand ones. It seems to me there is great merit in having one general purpose division of the country for purposes of not only elections, but in addition coaching and officials siminars, regional qualifications for national level events, , and thel like. Which of the plans (if any) are chosen ultimately is a political decision, whether by the Board or Annual Meeting. That is where the operational definition of "approximate equality" will be reached. There is no mandate to chose a plan simply because it provides the momentarily smallest variance in the size of areas compared with other plans. The only test is which plan offends the least number of voters when they are reminded of the phrase "approximately equal." When you factor in your curious phrase "geographically coherent", I can forsee myself arguing that coherent implies "making sense" or sticking logically together. It is my opinion that Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee join more sensibly with an area that includes Georgia and Florida, than Arizona, Colorado, and Montana. So even if a proposal meets some minimum threshold of "approximate equality" it may flounder because of geographical incoherence. So it goes. As deals go this is not a big one. My sense of the moment is that there are too many proposals, and the Annual Meeting will get confused. Actually my further sense is that because of its timing, and the diddling the BOD has brought about on the Proxy form that there will not be a quorum. at the annual meeting. As usual with messages composed on the fly, I used the wrong back space key, so some of this may be garbled. Not the logic, mind you (that is my usual impeccable pragmatic finest), just the expression. I see Rich Degarmo has a new LASER PRINTER. I bought myself a new HP Laser-Jet, and now a muddling through evaluation of the QMS vs. IMAGEN add-in Boards. I seem to be tilting to the QMS for no good reason.

PDheader:1988-06-02 18:24:00-07:00 8e53e7e42070865fa121bfb399d08b00 ∂02-Jun-88 1824 LES re: re: Deapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Jun 88 15:26 cst.] Group 1: NCAT EQ 1 Group 2: NCAT EQ 2

You say: .I want electoral regions which break down into areas which have a .programmatic basis. P. 11 3E2 (c) ... Should such riders be in the lead but being redirected back to the correct route cancels that lead, ... (or some such wording) Good enough. When do you plan to submit that proposal to the House of Delegates for review and possible adoption? Until it _is_ adopted, (i.e. shortly after Hell freezes over) please do not clutter the discussion with extraneous arguments. .My sense of the moment is that there are too many proposals, and the .Annual Meeting will get confused. I agree completely. That is why I was trying to simplify it. By the way, if you are going to tough it out with the two existing LegComm proposals, I recommend that you still consider my suggestions for making them more orderly, as expressed in the memo that should reach you shortly. .Actually my further sense is that because of its timing, and the diddling .the BOD has brought about on the Proxy form that there will not be a .quorum at the annual meeting. I fear that you are right about this too. This whole thing is probably an exercise in futility.

PDheader:1988-06-02 18:28:00-07:00 bb1eddce9b43dacf678487b0500a4525 ∂02-Jun-88 1828 LES re: re: Deapportionment To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Jun 88 15:26 cst.]

P.S. .I see Rich Degarmo has a new LASER PRINTER. I bought myself .a new HP Laser-Jet, and now a muddling through evaluation of .the QMS vs. IMAGEN add-in Boards. I seem to be tilting to .the QMS for no good reason. Now that the merger has been approved, they are both QMS. It is my impression that the QMS QMS approach is more expensive than the QMS Imagen approach. From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Thu Jun 2 20:26:35 PDT 1988 Article 4341 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Netherlands bike paths Keywords: bike lanes, Effective Cycling Message-ID: <22136@labrea.Stanford.EDU> Date: 1 Jun 88 23:44:58 GMT References: <9478@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5684@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <7958@ihlpa.ATT.COM> <639@ihopa.ATT.COM> <8545@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <15718@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <421@m3.mfci.UUCP> Sender: news@labrea.Stanford.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Distribution: na Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 20 In article <421@m3.mfci.UUCP> kerns@mfci.UUCP (Dan Kerns) writes: >Next time you get to The Netherlands, give it a try. You can get a bike >anywhere (try the Train Station at the underground bicycle garage). Not quite. I recall inquiring at the train station in Amsterdam in 1982 and getting only blank looks. I finally found a place that rented bikes in an alley about 10 blocks away from the train station. When I asked if they had 10-speeds, the answer was "No speeds!" I rode their clunker to a tulip festival in suburban Amsterdam but managed to get there only by riding part of the way on a road that was supposedly closed to bicycles. Whenever I stopped for directions, the answer I got was "Your should take the train" or "You can't get there from here." Not only did I get there but I also rode out to the West Coast and back the same day, though I got progressively slower due to a slow leak and no pump. Even so, I had a good time. Les Earnest, Stanford University Phone: 415 723-9729 Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les Stanford, CA 94305 From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Mon Jun 6 11:46:35 PDT 1988 Article 4382 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Handle Bar Grips ( gripes ? ) Keywords: Nerves adapt Message-ID: <22274@labrea.Stanford.EDU> Date: 5 Jun 88 21:24:57 GMT References: <35@telcomm.UUCP> <8480002@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> Sender: news@labrea.Stanford.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 24 In article <8480002@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> fitz@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Andy Fitzhugh) writes: >I can't recall ever hearing of top caliber racers complaining of hand >numbness. If anyone has had to develop form and position sufficient >to offset the rigors of strenuous cycling, it is the serious racer. The human nervous system is remarkably adaptable. I suspect that you don't hear many complaints about numbness from serious racers because they went through it earlier and recovered. I recall having problems with numbness in both my hands and my butt when I first started long distance touring and racing. It lasted a couple of weeks in some cases, but I never experienced numbness in exactly the same place twice. It appears that I blew out some circuits and adjacent neural networks in less vulnerable locations took over. I haven't had any problems of this sort for a long time now. I _have_ learned to change my position more frequently, but I suspect that the main reason this problem went away for me is the same reason that it doesn't bother the old pros -- we blew out all the vulnerable nerves long ago. Les Earnest, Stanford University Phone: 415 723-9729 Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les Stanford, CA 94305 rec.bicycles: 6/8/88; Are recumbents outlawed from racing? If so, when & why? In article 3423@ea.ecn.purdue.edu, mckay@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Dwight D Mckay) writes: >I have heard that recumbent bicycles were outlawed from bicycle >racing. Can someone fill me in with "the rest of the story"? When >did this happen? Why? I can think of reasons why this might be, >but I'd like to know the reasons the makers of the decision used. In 1938, a French rider named Charles Mochet used a vehicle called the Velocar, a recumbant bike with a streamlined hull, to break a number of existing cycling records and to beat some of the leading cyclists in direct competition. The cycling establishment found this hard to accept inasmuch as Mochet had shown only moderate cycling abilities in the past. The UCI reacted by creating a number of new rules that outlawed recumbant bicycles and aerodynamic fittings. They then proudly announced that Mochet had broken no records because he had not used a _real_ bicycle. Bureaucracy in action. In article <5077@june.cs.washington.edu>, pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: >``outlawed'', in this case, refers to specific sanctioning >organizatins. The USCF is one organization that does not allow >recumbents *in USCF sanctioned races*. This is not quite true. While UCI rules do prohibit recumbants, USCF Rule 1I1 requires only that bicycles used in domestic USCF races "be no more than 2 meters long and 75 cm. wide." Traditional recumbants exceed 2 meters in length, but it is possible to build one that meets this requirement and such a bike would be perfectly legal in USCF races.

PDheader:1988-06-09 09:01:00-07:00 5d4be63d45026db6d20e46b1367e113b ∂09-Jun-88 0901 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Volumes Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 09:01:41 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 9 Jun 88 09:01:26 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 9 Jun 88 09:01:36 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:14 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Volumes To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

P. 11 3E3 (b) LOOKS LIKE A BOLD TYPO? P. 13 3G2 (b) I see you have required a majority vote. I wonder if this is absolutely necessary to spell out, that is should some discretion rest with the presiding commissaire? I know we have already chatted about this; remember the Texas bolix where the under-officials made life miserable for the more rations chief. Someone has seized control of your terminal and is threatening to send at least 20 'pieces de resistance' under your name. They have started off sounding logical, but I suspect that is a ploy and any moment they will begin raving. I saw an article recently whereby the IOC Medical Commission (?) seems to be headed for what I would say are very draconian punishments for medical control violations. (2, maybe 3 years for first offense). This reminds me of earlier BOD disputes whether cursing an official was more reprehensible than long hair. My question is: is medical (doping) cheating comparable in effect to other forms of cheating for which the penalties which are generally accepted as fair are much less than the penalties proposed for medical violations? This keeps bothering me, partly because I think doping is absolutely impermissible, but for some reason I don't think it merits first offense penalites beyond the better part of a competition season. Have you thought this through? -------- (Phil, who ordered QMS's Board at $1601 UPS). That's it for the moment

PDheader:1988-06-09 14:28:00-07:00 76a8ac0ea37551d26e88fb17f8ee052b ∂09-Jun-88 1428 LES re: Volumes To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:14 CDT.]

. Someone has seized control of your terminal and is threatening . to send at least 20 'pieces de resistance' under your name. They . have started off sounding logical, but I suspect that is a ploy . and any moment they will begin raving. Yes, don't jump to any conclusions until you read the later section on "Kicking the President's butt." You can probably guess which President. I share your views on drug penalties. The UCI, USOC, and U.S. Government all seem to be getting hysterical about this problem. I believe that 30 days for a first offense is about right. Incidentally, the local VA Hospital announced last week that they plan to begin drug testing of all employees in 60 days. I helped gather information that will result in a suit being filed today by the ACLU to prevent this project from proceeding. . (Phil, who ordered QMS's Board at $1601 UPS). Great. That's probably why their (our) stock went up yesterday.

PDheader:1988-06-17 07:50:00-07:00 54d10ac2f0fe3611dbfffdb8ee103fd6 ∂17-Jun-88 0750 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU RE: re: Performance enhancement and fair play: More Olympic Scheming Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jun 88 07:50:37 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Fri, 17 Jun 88 07:50:04 PDT From: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 17 Jun 88 07:50:01 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 09:48 cst Subject: RE: re: Performance enhancement and fair play: More Olympic Scheming

[Part To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU X-Vms-To: IN%"LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU" Bruce was an "alternate" who had not quite penetrated either the "generally recognized as safe" in-crowd of officials at the time of the Olympics. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, alas. On another topic, there is still much fretting in COS about Bob Leibold's status as a candidate. Bart Enoch did a little research but reached no published conclusion (though I have it that he rather thinks write-ins are invalid). The OPINION of the executive committee has been polled, and I think that it is split. I cautioned Jerry that in issues such as this only the new Board, as it comes to its first session is apt to be qualified for making a final determination, absent interested parties.

PDheader:1988-06-17 11:25:00-07:00 72ec2ecb22f904007ff04d0943a4d752 ∂17-Jun-88 1125 LES re: re: Performance enhancement and fair play: More Olympic Scheming To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Jun 88 09:48 cst.]

It seems to me that unless someone can point to either a USCF regulation or a New York NFPC law that makes write-ins illegal that they must be considered legal. There is nothing in the Rulebook that says that and I do not recall anything in the New York laws, but it would take some research to be certain. Enoch's non-position is consistent with past performances. I have never been very impressed with him. In any case, this issue will likely be moot -- I don't give Bob much of a chance to be elected as a write-in. Tour of Nevada City results Here are the top 10 placings in the 28th annual Tour of Nevada City for the Senior 1-2-pro, Senior Women, and Junior events. The air temperature during the men's event was reportedly 103 degrees F. Senior 1-2-pro 1. Todd Gogulski 2. Andy Paulin 3. Glenn Sanders 4. Chris Bailey 5. Mark Caldwell 6. Scott McKinley 7. Matt Harmon 8. Wayne Stetina 9. Matt Newberry 10. Scott Neilson Incidentally, though Wayne Stetina took 8th in the Senior 1-2-pro event, he remarked afterward that it would have been more sensible for him to compete with the Masters. Bob Muzzy tried to ride both events, but had derailleur problems in the Masters race and not enough oomph for the Senior event. Senior 1-2-3 Women 1. Katrin Tobin 2. Sally Zack 3. Sue Ehlers 4. Liz Chapman 5. Patty Peoples 6. Kristen Feix 7. Maureen Manly 8. Inga Benedict 9. Leslie Schenk 10. Melody Wong Junior 1. Steve Larson 2. Kevin Moncrieff 3. Mark Leece 4. Brian Anderson 5. Ozzie Hutchins 6. Kevin Eaton 7. Keith White 8. Jon Husby 9. Steve Jackson 10. Aaron Tait

PDheader:1988-06-23 03:04:00-07:00 852d2f10bdfd2e50c22fe39956717286 ∂23-Jun-88 0304 nbires!ames!claris!apple!burich@unidot.uucp re: Susan Ehlers? Received: from umunhum.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 03:04:53 PDT Received: by umunhum.stanford.edu (1.2/inc-1.2) id AA22720; Thu, 23 Jun 88 03:05:14 pdt Received: by ncar.UCAR.EDU (5.58/1.00.UUCP-MOD.8-11-85) id AA01082; Wed, 22 Jun 88 12:10:18 MDT Received: Wed, 22 Jun 88 11:06:47 PDT by ames.arc.nasa.gov (5.59/1.2) Received: by claris.com (3.2/SMI-3.2) id AA29011; Wed, 22 Jun 88 11:01:07 PDT Received: by apple.apple.com; id AA13428; Wed, 22 Jun 88 10:37:00 PDT Date: Wed, 22 Jun 88 10:37:00 PDT From: Vicki Burich <ames!claris!burich@apple.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8806221737.AA13428@apple.apple.com> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, burich@apple.apple.com Subject: re: Susan Ehlers?

Thanks for the congrats -- I sure couldn't beat the heat though -- UGH! Vicki

PDheader:1988-06-23 17:08:00-07:00 75363d53361b5656f80190ead1a47b3c ∂23-Jun-88 1708 LES Stage race issues To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU

Local official Tom Simonson has written still another stage race time calculation program and requests disambiguation of a couple of issues. 1. Are time penalties for individual riders also subtracted from team G.C. if that rider is one of those who "counts"? 2. A rider who has a mishap during the last kilometer get the time that he would have had had the mishap not occurred, but what placing does he get? My answers based on recollections of Red Zinger/Coors experience are: 1. Yes. 2. The last place in the group he was riding with. He has apparently received different answers from other quarters; for example: "2. The place that he actually got." One thing that is wrong with this answer, I claim, is that a rider suffering such a mishap is not even obligated to finish the race. In any case, you are stuck with finding the answers, so there! Incidentally, he also asked about the circumstances under which the 20% time cut is to be imposed or relaxed. I told him "Don't ask." As you may recall, I tried to disambiguate that with legislation last Fall and got shot down.

PDheader:1988-06-28 11:11:00-07:00 bc49ce68f8b2f86e23a6a8eacaa1d7f9 ∂28-Jun-88 1111 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU RE: Stage race issues Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 11:11:46 PDT Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 28 Jun 88 11:12:09 PDT From: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 28 Jun 88 11:13:08 PDT Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 10:34 cst Subject: RE: Stage race issues To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU X-Vms-To: IN%"LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU"

For Simonson's questions: 1. Yes, also ... the bonus and penalty times are applied to the rider's initial finish time, then the result is passed along to the calculation of the team G.C. BUT WAIT ... Is his real question supposing one of the first three finishers is penalized, so that his time become slower than a fourth team member? Is the team GC calculated on the first three across the line, or on the fastest three times after adjustment with penalties and bonuses? I think the answer is that it is the fastest 3 adjusted times, but I could see a counter argument that if skulduggery gave a higher finishing order to a rider, then there should be a penalty. The effect of the penalty might be a wash or at least reduced by selecting the fastest 3 adjusted times. I don't have the UCI rules here with me to see if they have anything clear to say ... probably they don't get so detailed. [Page 9] Comments? K.2 (Officials licensing): I put it in as you wrote it, except that I deleted the following passage from Part 1 because it provides a repetitive (and, eventually, potentially conflicting) description of responsibilities defined in Rule 1H: "A chief referee manages the overall conduct of a race, assigning and delegating duties to the other officials; chief officials are responsible for general functions; assistant officials carry out specific duties." [Page 11] Fees 9 (Officials Fees): I fiddled this a bit, more or less as we discussed. After staring at the revised fees table a bit, I conclude that the gap between "Chief Officials" and "Other Officials" is too great. I added an amendment to narrow the gap.

PDheader:1988-07-08 17:45:00-07:00 a7a714dfbd446e61c95c86f7934b9fd7 ∂08-Jul-88 1745 Mailer re: bike and el camino To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

PS We're off to Ore-Ida now... With respect to Hy Tran's close encounter with a bus on El Camino, Taleen says: .As has been pointed out, it is rather risky to ride on El Camino -- .especially during the after-work rush hour. I don't think you have a very .solid case against the driver (although I am sure it scared the pants off .of you). Taleen does not seem to understand either the Moter Vehicle Code or common courtesy. While El Camino _is_ risky, cyclists have as much right to be there as busses. If there is not room for a bus to pass a cyclist in the right lane with an adequate safety margin, then the bus must change lanes in order to pass. The idea that the driver may endanger a cyclist's life for personal convenience is patently absurd and anyone who pulls a stunt like that deserves to be zapped. When I had a bus deliberately run me into a parked car in San Jose two years ago, I sprinted ahead to the next bus stop, boarded the bus, and threatened to rearrange the driver's teeth. I should have complained to the County too, but I was on my way to San Diego at the time and didn't want to stop to file a complaint. Hy Tran says that El Camino is the best way to get to San Antonio Mall. Actually, there is a quieter route that is about the same distance. From Stanford, go East on Hanover Street to the elbow, then take the bike path to Gunn High School. Across the street from Gunn, just to the left of the cemetary, is another bike path that takes you to Los Altos Avenue. Jog right a half-block there and continue in the same direction and you will end up at San Antonio one block South of El Camino.

PDheader:1988-09-26 22:31:00-07:00 72bd057e5d5dcd1cf9873c8aa1169435 ∂26-Sep-88 2231 LES Fiddles to Technical Commission proposals To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Having just watched the last Olympic bike race on the tube, I guess I'd better send this. Incidentally, there was precious little cycling coverage in the NBC broadcasts. I guess that it was proportional to the medal acquisition (sigh).

PDheader:1988-10-05 01:33:00-07:00 96f00cfc7eca0e35526ffcac04b39083 ∂05-Oct-88 0133 LES re: Points of order To: EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 25 Jan 88 23:41 CST.] [In reply to message sent Mon, 3 Oct 88 23:41 CDT.]

Glad you like the general idea. However, when you say about the UCI bit that I fiddled: > It collapses into to the 4-up rounds what otherwise would have been the > pairings with 2-up heats. I wonder what do nonexistent 2-up heats have to do with the price of eggs? And when you say: > Also, it is a little more sensible when used with fewer then 24 entrants. you are arguing about virtually nonexistent third-order effects. If you perpetuate that silliness, I predict that within a couple of years there will be at least a dozen theories circulating that will "explain" the pseudo-random order, all of them with merit equal to yours. > BESIDES, it looked like the same sort of diddling which annoyed you > with Leibold and the rulebook. So there. Eh? You keep trying to rationalize Robert's unethical conduct. Why? What do suggestions regarding proposed standards have in common with unilaterally changing something that was approved by the Board? With respect to your question about the Superbowl, yes I qualify. Regarding the officials' clinic, I would still like to come but probably won't be able to. Attached is a message that I plan to post to Usenet on rec.bicycles. It will probably evoke the usual flaming responses. Comments invited.

PDheader:1988-10-05 23:21:00-07:00 f01d94ef81807f334f02d66b2445774a ∂05-Oct-88 2321 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Upgrading Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 88 23:21:19 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 5 Oct 88 23:20:49 PDT Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 01:13 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Upgrading To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

------ I have continued to putter with reapportionment configurations, and have converged on a plan which is roughly as follows: 6 Sections, Consisting of 2 Regions each The Sections range from within -6 to +4 percent of the "ideal" size The regions vary substantially in size. As I think about the way in which the USCF has apportioned itself in recent times, only the sectional equality has been important. While regions were supposed also to be equal, in fact they are only minimally guaranteed one director. I propose that regions have a programmatic or geographic sense, rather than an arbitrary accumulation for electoral purposes. Thus I propose to increase by a factor of 2 the effective guarantee of representation on the Board (from 3 sections to 6). (I have been substantially recasting the Constitution and Bylaws to deal with this melange of issues). In the reworking, I propose that in order to be guaranteed a director, a region would have to have at least 1/24th (assuming a Board of 24 geographic directors) of the rider population. I would remove the nonesenical requirement for substantial equality in regions. Here is part of my thinking. The section I call West Central is a huge (in square mileage) area, which consists generally of the Rocky Mountain States and the great plains farming states. The latter include Minnesota Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas; the former include Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. The plains states are approximately 40 percent less populated than the ideal region, the mountain states approximately 40 percent more. It would be possible to arbitrarily add mountain states to the plains group to achieve a numeric balance. In practice, riders from both the areas have virtually nothing in common, races of almost any scale do not conflict because the distances are so vast. Here are some of the rubs of the moment: I have put Hawaii and Southern California together, Hawaii is too small to be guaranteed a director, and Southern California would be given 4 directors. That will be unpopular, I suppose. However they are growing faster than the USCF as a whole and like it or not, that is where the members are! For a long time I had Arizona in with Southern California, and it could stay there. However Scott Bradley's position is that Idaho and Montana fit much better with Oregon and Washington than with the other Rocky Mountain districts. Northern Cal would, of course, be combined with Oregon and Washington. Altogether that would make another four directors, but one would be mandated for the Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Alaska region. To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu In-Reply-To: <6024@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: UF CIS Department Cc: Comments? With regard to the Polish fellow that won the Cyclocross Nat'l Championships, then was denied the Championship because of an ex post facto change in the rules: Surely this is one of the more ridiculous and disgusting things that I have read about this year in sports. The man has been accepted here as a refugee, and will get full citizenship... He was allowed to compete, and he won fair and square. Would this have happened if he had gotten, say, 5th place? I tend to doubt it. This ranks with the misbehavior of the Korean boxing officials at the 88 Olympic boxing matches as one of the truly appalling and jingoistic "decisions" that I have seen. H. Luce

PDheader:1988-10-06 00:07:00-07:00 2db2baad3d3bd1be9cf1cfb34f691503 ∂06-Oct-88 0007 LES Upgrading To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU You say: "This item may still need some thinking. For example: why 6 places and not

(say) 5 with points of 7,5,3,2,1?" What he really needs is a congressional sponsor, I've heard of naturalization taking only two weeks for congress to put a rider on a popular bill and have the president sign off! All depends on how likely you are to win the Olympics. P Indeed, why not 10 places? I based my points proposal on the existing system, which seems to be working alright as far as the "size of the hoop" is concerned, but is a bit bizarre in its details. *Gary -- _Q _Q _Q _Q _Q_Q _Q _Q _Q /_\) /_\) /_\) /_\)/_/\\) /_\) /_\) Gary Powell /_\) _O|/O_O|/O__O|/O___O|/O_OO|/O__O|/O__O|/O__________________________________O|/O_ UUCP!uw-beaver!tikal!ole!powell Seattle Silicon Corp. (206) 828-4422

PDheader:1988-10-06 01:50:00-07:00 9c55a0cbe1370abffed2745fe99bd41a ∂06-Oct-88 0150 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Olympics Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 88 01:50:04 PDT Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04772; Thu, 6 Oct 88 01:46:36 PDT Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 01:46:36 PDT From: Ilan Vardi <ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Message-Id: <8810060846.AA04772@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> To: les@sail Subject: Olympics Cc: ilan@score

Les: Here is the latest version which I mentioned on the phone Percents are deviation from the region or section ideal (regarding sprint heats) Area Reg Licensees Reg Tot Sec Tot Sec The UCI sprint formats use 2, 3 and 4 up heats to progressively eliminate riders. A 2 up heat is the "classic" or more desireable form, but expediency requires 3 or sometimes 4 up matches. Thus, ideally even in repechage rounds, 2 up heats would be used, even in the 16th finals. If 2 ups were used, then their form generally would match the highest ranked rider against the lowest, and so on (but avoiding rematches). In practice, a 4 up is employed in the 16th finals. However, it is possible to include in one 4 up the same pairings that would have been used in a 2 up format. That is what I meant by "collapsing." In the event there are fewer than 24 entrants, but more than 16, the chart which the Technical Commission adopted can still be used. Another general concept is that the advantage goes to the higher ranked riders. It is an advantage to race in a heat with fewer riders (I assume -- less craziness, fewer riders to have to keep an eye on). Your chart, in the case of fewer than 24 entrants, generally gives the advantage to lower ranked riders in the 16th finals repechages. The effects are neither non-existant nor third order. Several international races I've attended have struggled with the UCI charts (they have in the first round match ups the same problem of not giving the desired advantage when there are fewer than 24 entrants; the solution required shuffling the heats for low-ranked riders). I imagine at district championships there will be many places where there are fewer than 24 entrants. They too should have a clue how to properly organize their sprint rounds. I reworked the tables that deal with as few as 3 riders. That stuff is heading for the officials handbook. (regarding diddling) The Sprint Formats were not merely proposed standards, they were adopted standards (by the Technical Commission and then by the Board as whole, which accepted our report). (regarding Scott Handlebars) The reason why the TC again reviewed the bars was that the closed end bar which we were first shown in Park City was merely a prototype. Apparently the manufacturer decided not to produce them, but instead designed a "bridge" connector, and thought it best if the USCF would take a look again at the design and concept. (parting) Hi, I read your letter in Velo-news. I agree with most of it, and with all the suggestions for changing the format of the Olympics. Here are some of the points I take issue with: 1) The boycott in Montreal in 1976 was not a protest against South Africa. South Africa was already disallowed from participating. It was a protest against New Zealand. New Zealand had sent a rugby team to South Africa and the African coutries wanted New Zealand barred from the Montreal games. 2) The 1980 boycott occured before the winter games. I remember distinctly that the USSR had the opportunity to respond by not showing up to Lake Placid. Of course this can be checked easily enough. 3) Though not a point of fact I do not think that the 1968 demonstration by gold medallists can be compared to actions of countries or of groups outside the Olympics. It can be argued that victorious athletes are given a podium, and that from this podium they have the right to do whatever they want. 4) I believe that the Olympics can be a test of ideologies. In the 70's East Germany became dominant in many sports by using sports science to its highest level. E.g, they were uniquely responsible for the introduction of weight training to all sports. Another reason for their success was choosing sports for children at an early age according to body type and innate potential. The East German dominance in swiming at the Montreal games was a clear victory of Eastern block ideology. Conversly, the dominance of Janet Evans in her events was a victory for Western ideology. Under the East German system for example, a child of Janet Evans' proportions could never have gone on in swimming and would have been switched to some other sport. The frustration on the face of East German Heike Friedriech was the frustration of the whole Eastern Block: She had been *chosen* by the government over all others for her body type, her physiology and ability to follow a strict training regimen. Yet she lost to someone with none of those factors who had reached the top through individual achievement.

PDheader:1988-10-06 11:19:00-07:00 00fb1ad9bc99d71867f4a924302a3723 ∂06-Oct-88 1119 LES re: Olympics To: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 6 Oct 88 01:46:36 PDT.]

Thanks for your interesting response. Here are my immediate reactions. > 1) The boycott in Montreal in 1976 was not a protest against > South Africa. South Africa was already disallowed from participating. Good point -- I had forgotten that. It was, of course, a secondary boycott against South Africa. > 2) The 1980 boycott occured before the winter games. I remember > distinctly that the USSR had the opportunity to respond by > not showing up to Lake Placid. Not true; there was no boycott of the 1980 Winter Games. Indeed, that was the year that Eric Heiden won 5 Golds in speed skating and the Eastern Bloc was there. > 3) Though not a point of fact I do not think that the 1968 > demonstration by gold medallists can be compared to actions > of countries or of groups outside the Olympics. I agree that their salute was of a different character than the governmental posturing, in that it was the product of individual conscience, with a bit of outside prodding by Harry Edwards, but I believe that it would not have occurred to them to use the medal ceremony as a political forum if it had not already been established as such. Your remarks under 4) are quite interesting. Selection of prospective athletes by body type is another example of turning a norm into a requirement. It is often a bad idea, but we earthmen keep doing it. I recall that when my older son participated as a sprinter in the 1973 Junior Worlds cycling championships in Munich, he sent us a postcard saying, "I just met the Russian sprinters and they are all BIG." Perhaps the East Germans will now modify their formula to permit smaller women a chance to swim.

PDheader:1988-10-06 17:55:00-07:00 61d988c68a15263219084212d9fb8141 ∂06-Oct-88 1755 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Olympics Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 88 17:55:23 PDT Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00715; Thu, 6 Oct 88 17:51:46 PDT Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 17:51:46 PDT From: Ilan Vardi <ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Message-Id: <8810070051.AA00715@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Les Earnest's message of 06 Oct 88 1119 PDT <cn9mO@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Olympics

> Too bad you can't do it like we do in sailing, let everyone compete >but only pick the first n "eleigble" riders for the international team. Les, you didn't read point 2) of my letter correctly. I didn't say that a boycott occured in 1980, only that the USA boycott happened before the winter games and the USSR had the opportunity to respond by boycotting Lake Placid.

PDheader:1988-10-07 13:13:00-07:00 67f80005ca3fa151cffc12239787ef17 ∂07-Oct-88 1313 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Moment Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 88 13:13:29 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA05944; Fri, 7 Oct 88 15:08:21 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 13:04:18 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810051804.AA02814@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 5 Oct 88 13:04:18 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Moment

I would say the amendment to item 24 is "in process", that is there should be a bunch of discussion, and perhaps the Technoids will have their own opinion also. Yes, an overall series prize list should be taxed, as well as the prize list of the components races. The SPENCO race is getting more and more messy. It has taken on the characteristics of a "promoter's fantasy" so it is hard to tell what kind of event it really is. Alice, while in Wonderland, came across a "Caucus Race", in which one could enter any time, stop any time, and the race went round and round until it finished. "And all shall have prizes." That seems to be what's going on in Texas, what with a short loop (say 10 miles, and not only individual events, but team relays. Between Degarmo's inability to say "No", my willingness to say "Yes" for rule exceptions, Will Rotzler's indecision on officials, it's all quite confusing. Stay alert for latest developments. Dear Sir, The reply that you sent me via e-mail follows: The Power returned about 45 minutes after we finished chatting last night. >Date: 11 Jan 89 0214 PST >From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> >Subject: re: Cyclocross National Championshisp >To: hhl@BEACH.CIS.UFL.EDU T >[In reply to message sent Wed, 11 Jan 89 03:37:04 EST.]

PDheader:1988-10-07 15:38:00-07:00 d0efdd8842163477b578da9c0540339e ∂07-Oct-88 1538 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Upgrading Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 88 15:38:13 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA07886; Fri, 7 Oct 88 17:33:01 CDT Date: Fri, 7 Oct 88 17:38:22 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810072238.AA04264@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 7 Oct 88 17:38:22 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Upgrading

In part I was thinking out loud about the number of places, you are right that 6 seems to be a workable hoop. Indeed 6 is one of my more useful numbers. It seems better to use than "some" or "5". For example, how many times have you been to New York, How many finished ahead of you, or how many basic concepts are essential to understanding computer programming? 6 is a good answer for such questions ... it is thoughtful sounding and seldom used by others. I think we should be a little cautious about removing discretion completely until we are sure that the table is solidly thought out. The French rule book includes a phrase to the effect that where a rider has manifested superior ability but nonetheless has not amassed the requisite number of (victories - in their method of upgrading), that the rider may be upgraded. Whether the points should be different between the various classes is a matter for discussion, and among other things may be influenced by how rigorous the minimum requirements for the upgrading races are. That is if there are lot of races which meet the minima, then the threshold could be raised, to avoid moving someone up on the basis of just a few perhaps flukey (?) results. But if relatively few opportunities would arise during the course of a 12 month period, then the threshold could be low. 15 points is a pretty good number, but I really think it is worth a technical commission argument. It's all a matter of fine tuning. I would like to err on the side of generosity, however, because I would rather not create a system that is so rigid that very few riders are able to advance during the year. >You apparently did not read my message carefully. I will spell it out for >you. The Polish rider was not eligible to enter the race. His manager >got him in by lying to the race officials. There was no change in rules >involved.

PDheader:1988-10-10 23:34:00-07:00 6a4e369be978f5fda444a6fa1094c4d5 ∂10-Oct-88 2334 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Mountain Bike First Draft Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Oct 88 23:34:15 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13078; Tue, 11 Oct 88 01:28:59 CDT Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 01:30:25 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810110630.AA01921@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 11 Oct 88 01:30:25 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Mountain Bike First Draft

>The tone of your message suggests that you wish to rant independent of >the facts of the case. If so, feel free, but please talk to someone else. >For example, the Koreans. > Les Earnest **** ITEM ( New ) **** Mountain Bike Racing Amend the Racing Rules by adding new rules to deal with Mountain Bike racing as follows: 2K. MOUNTAIN BIKE 2K1. The course shall be over terrain of which less than 20% should be paved. The ideal course contains climbing, descending, with portions along relatively narrow trails. A skilled rider should be able to cover the entire course on a bicycle, despite the presence of obstacles such as debris, and climatic, broken, or unpaved surface conditions which make traversing the course difficult. Either massed start or individual time trial events are conducted, depending upon the course as follows: (a) Circuit races are massed start events conducted one or more times over a closed loop which does not cross itself. The circuits should be longer than 2.5 kilometers. (b) Point-to-point races are conducted with their start and finish at different locations. No part of the course is ridden more than once. An hill climb is either a massed start or an individual time trial with a finish line at a substantially higher elevation than its start. A descent is an individual time trial conducted on a course that must be largely free from debris and obstacles with a finish line at a substantially lower elevation than the start. (c) The maximum recommended distance of a race is 80 km. for senior riders, and 50 kilometers for all others. (d) The course should be at least 2 meters wide throughout so that riders can pass at nearly all points. (e) The number and location of equipment pits and feeding stations shall be left to the discretion of the chief referee, who shall take into consideration the specific requirements of the course, They shall be set up so as not to hinder the race or endanger the participants. 2K2. The start and finish lines shall be a line of uniform width between 4 and 6 cm perpendicular to the course, and across its entire width. The start and finish may be located either in a flat or ascending area, with the following additional specifications: (a) MASSED START EVENTS. The start shall be a minimum of 7 meters in width from a distance of 30 meters before the starting line until 300 meters after the line. The course may thereafter gradually taper to the minimum course width. The finish shall be a minimum of 7 meters wide beginning from a distance 200 meters before the line until 50 meters after the line. (b) INDIVIDUAL TIME TRIALS. The minimum width for the start and finish is 2 meters. (c) The start and finish need not be paved, however the surface shall be relatively uniform and stable, to allow sprinting and passing of riders. 2K3. The race course shall be clearly marked throughout its length with arrows that indicate: the route to follow; intersections; and any situations which call for caution. Direction markers should be placed througout the course so the rider may continually confirm that the correct route is being followed. The markers should be black on a white or yellow background of a minimum size of 30 by 60 cm. (a) Intersections shall be marked with arrows indicating the direction to be traveled approximately 30 meters before and at the intersections. After intersections, confirming arrows shall be placed approximately 30 meters along the course in the new direction to be followed. Signs with an "X" should be placed in the opposite directions to inform the rider of incorrect routes. (b) Where cautious riding is advisable due to obstacles, the course surface, or the direction of the course, warning signs shall be placed approximately 30 meters before the area of difficulty. 2K4. RIDER CONDUCT. (a) Riders must aquaint themselves with the race course before the race, and they alone are responsible for following the official course. Cutting through trail switchbacks is prohibited. (b) Riders may receive mechanical assistance and hand-ups only in the areas officially established for those purposes. Riders may not exchange food and mechanical assistance amongst themselves except that teammates may exchange bicycles during the race. (c) In a circuit race, riders on different laps may not ride together; the slower rider should allow the faster rider to pass ahead. (d) Riders shall before, during, and after their competition avoid damaging the enviroment in the course vicinity. Comment: Since it has been decided to disolve the affiliation with NORBA, it is necessary to include in the USCF regulations information on the organization and conduct of mountain bike competitions. The above rules are drawn largely from draft FIAC regulations. The general rules of the USCF are adequate to cover most of the situations arising in Moutain Bike Competions. As with Cyclo-Cross what mainly is needed is some technical information on course design and rider conduct. I enclose, for reference, your original posting to the net. The second sentence in the first paragraph states that the error (letting the Polish athlete compete) was made by the chief referee; there was no mention of the athlete's manager in any part of your posting. The posting goes on to state that a *recent* change in the rules made him ineligible to compete in the event. I stand by what I said in my letter to you, and I do believe you owe me an apology.

PDheader:1988-10-11 10:45:00-07:00 a95ad4215f57e2a0a2a6967a229bb068 ∂11-Oct-88 1045 LES re: Olympics To: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 6 Oct 88 17:51:46 PDT.]

That certainly works in time trial events and will continue to be used in such national championships. In massed start and elimination events such as sprint and pursuit, however, the presence of ineligible competitors can distort the results even without worrying about "combines." "Flame on MacDuff, and damned be him who cries enough!" Sorry for the slow response -- I was out of town. Les Earnest - - - - - - - You say: > I didn't > say that a boycott occured in 1980, only that the USA boycott > happened before the winter games and the USSR had the opportunity > to respond by boycotting Lake Placid. I believe not. The boycott was initiated in the Spring of 1980, after the Winter Games. I have a clear recollection because I was involved in trying to overthrow that proposal.

PDheader:1988-10-11 22:07:00-07:00 a426cd03c1b2f4234ba045280a7af686 ∂11-Oct-88 2207 EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Up and down Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Oct 88 22:06:55 PDT Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 11 Oct 88 22:06:14 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 23:25 CDT From: <EVV6101%UMNACVX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Up and down To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

RELIABLE Unreliable .. Reliable Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 5 1.1 1.1 1.1 Low Rating 1 2 .4 .4 1.6 2 7 1.6 1.6 3.1 3 25 5.6 5.6 8.7 4 57 12.8 12.8 21.5 5 138 30.9 30.9 52.3 High Rating 6 131 29.3 29.3 81.7 7 82 18.3 18.3 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 447 100.0 100.0 INCRSPCT Increases respect .. Decreases respect Today I mailed (postal) 15 pages of legislation things to the Technical Commission. One thing I didn't include was the idea of doing away with the Board of Appeals. Andy says he is having all sorts of trouble trying to get Susan Bookspan to appoint anyone. For her part, she is miffed that I (the T.C.) don't consult with her on the appointments which are made for officials. As it stands now, the T.C. and the Board of Appeals are slightly in conflict. (Someone could try to appeal a decision of the T.C., so I don't think there should be consultation as long as the one might pass judgement on the other. Have you been collecting any other goodies?

PDheader:1988-10-12 14:34:00-07:00 b3f7aa37caebd8d669a0ec7d178aa5e6 ∂12-Oct-88 1434 LES re: Mountain Bike First Draft To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Fri, 29 Jan 88 15:56:38 CST.]

Cordially, Hudson Luce Sho' nuff, I received two messages from you today. [In reply to message sent Tue, 11 Oct 88 01:30:25 CDT.] Enc: Thanks for your message yesterday. I have revised the Usenet posting to show why the Scott handlebars came up again and have posted it. Gack! You're getting ahead of me -- I'd better huury up. With respect to your remarks on "collapsing," I believe that I understand what you are saying but see no relevance to the design of sprint seeding. If you are running 4-up reps, you are running 4-ups and "might-have-been" 2-ups have no bearing on the design. >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) >Subject: Cyclocross National Championshisp Message-ID: <6024@polya.Stanford.EDU> Date: 11 Jan 89 02:30:20 GMT Sender: news@polya.Stanford.EDU Followup to an earier posting: USCF will announce today that Polish rider Jan Weijak has been disqualified from the Cyclocross National Championships, held December 18 in Plymouth, Massachusetts on the grounds that he was ineligible to enter. He had gotten into the race through an error on the part of the chief referee and managed to win it. Thus Casey Kunselman of San Luis Obispo, CA becomes the 1988 national champion. He had already been selected to represent the U.S. at the World Championships later this month. Mr. Weijak is classified as a refugee by the Immigration an Naturalization Service and is expected to become a Permanent Resident of the U.S. in late 1989. Under earlier rules, that would have made him eligible for the 1989 Cyclocross Nationals, but the USCF Board of Directors recently adopted a new bylaw regarding championships that are also selection races for international competition (other than time trials) that bars entry to anyone not eligible for the international event. Because of this change, Mr. Weijak will probably not be eligible to compete in the Cyclocross nationals until he becomes a U.S. citizen in about 5 years. Seems like a waste of talent, but as long as national championships are used as selection races for international competition, there doesn't seem to be an alternative that makes sense. Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Stanford, CA 94305

PDheader:1988-10-12 18:40:00-07:00 4ec9a907050040225b826522b6c4b362 ∂12-Oct-88 1840 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Climb every mountain Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Oct 88 18:40:22 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA09325; Wed, 12 Oct 88 20:34:54 CDT Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 20:36:24 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810130136.AA04735@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 20:36:24 CDT

PDheader:1988-10-12 20:38:00-07:00 24e99f464b13e8dc31a7748e703ab87f ∂12-Oct-88 2038 LES re: Climb every mountain To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 12 Oct 88 20:36:24 CDT.]

- - - - - - - - - Er, well, the term "cross-country cycling" has already been used -- there was a sport called "cycling cross-country" that got contracted to "cyclo-cross," which I further contracted to "cyclocross." TO: M. JEKIEL, SECRETARY GENERAL, UCI FROM: P. VOXLAND, TECHNICAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, USCF DATE: APRIL 4, 1988 RE: UCI GENERAL REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 49 A PROBLEM HAS DEVELOPED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN DIMENSIONS GIVEN IN ARTICLE 49: ENFORCEMENT OF THE MAXIMUM OF 125 MM. FOR THE REAR WHEEL WIDTH CANNOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE (1) COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THOSE MANUFACTURED BY CAMPAGNOLO EXCEEED THAT DIMENSION, AND THESE COMPONENTS ARE WIDELY SOLD AND USED THROUGH/UT THE USA; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE 125 MM. REGULATION ARE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL VISUALLY, AND AT THE START OF THE RACE DIFFICULT ACCURATELY TO CONTROL UNLESS THE WHEEL IS REMOVED FROM THE FRAME. ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIMIT OF 75 MM. FOR AN OVALISED FRAME TUBE IS POSSIBLE, IN THAT A FRAME WHICH MAY VIOLATE THE RULE CAN BE NOTICED EASILY, AND CONTROLLED (MEASURED) WITHOUT DIFFICULTY. ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIMIT OF 35 MM. FOR A ROUND FRAME TUBE IS RELATIVELY EASY EVEN THOUGH AT THE START OF A RACE EQUIPMENT WHICH MAY VIOLATE THE LIMIT IS LESS OBVIOUS. OUR PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE A REGULATION, A PART OF WHICH IS IMPRACTICAL TO ENFORCE, AND WHICH THEREFORE MUST BE RESERVED ONLY FOR THE CONTROL OF EXTREME AND OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS, AND A REGULATION PART OF WHICH CAN BE ENFORCED BUT IS, IN THE VIEW OF CERTAIN TEAM SPONSORS AND MANUFACTURERS, INCORRECT. FORMAL PROTESTS AND APPEALS OF THE UCI ARTICLE 49 REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSAIRES AT THE TOUR OF TEXAS. MY OPINION IS THAT THE PART OF ARTICLE 49 WHICH HAS PROVEN TO BE UNENFORCEABLE EXCEPT FOR EXTREME AND OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS, SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED UNLESS THE WHEEL AXLES APPEAR VISUALLY TO SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEED THE LIMIT. HOWEVER, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE USCF IS NOT ABLE TO INSTRUCT UCI COMMISSAIRES ON THE DETAILS OF ARTICLE 49 INTERPRETATION. UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OR MORE TEAM MANAGERS ARE DEMANDING EITHER THAT THE ENTIRE RULE OR NO PART OF THE RULE SHOULD BE ENFORCED. IN UNITED STATES LAW, THIS QUESTION, WHICH MAY SEEM UNNECESSARY, CAN TURN OUT TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT ISSUE. I REQUEST YOUR FORMAL OPINION, FOR FUTURE EVENTS, ABOUT THIS REGULATION. OUR COMMISSAIRES NEED TO BE CLEARLY INSTRUCTED: HOW SHALL THE MEASUREMENTS AND LIMITS IN ARTICLE 49 BE ENFORCED IN VIEW THAT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ONE PART IS CLEARLY NOT ENFORCEABLE? - - - - - - - -

PDheader:1988-10-13 02:17:00-07:00 6bde29c8744e8626bc5129ffda804c8f ∂13-Oct-88 0217 LES re: Up and down To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Howcum you sometimes send messages via the bletcherous BITNET when you have a more reasonable network connection available? t-test for: ASUM Score - Overall [Page 12] I agree that the BCF scheme seems to have merit. Your list of "qualifying races" is a bit confusing, however: the proposal lists "track, criterium, and road races," but there are just two categorizations: road and track. Better make it clear somehow that both road and criterium points contribute to the rider's road category. Maybe we need a distinct term for either the generic "road race" or the specific race of the same name. Thanks for your review. I did send copies to Weiss and Leibold, but not Hanley, Stetina, or Halsey. In fact, I don't seem to have an address for the latter two. I can do some Fed-Exing if you think it is important. I rephrased the remarks about the district "surcharge" on the grounds that it is not a surcharge -- surcharges are _an addition to_ some basic charge. Using that term would certainly lead to confusion. (It would be better still, I believe, to not mention district association fees, but you didn't buy that argument earlier.) I also moved the descriptions of things included in the basic entry fee into the segment on basic entry fees, which I claim is more logical. P. 4 Item 59 (b) Why Combine 1E2 and 1E1? [Page 13] Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but I have to agree that it probably would make more sense to keep them separate -- I'll change that. Bylaw E (Development Committee): I changed it from Section 5 to Section 3 on the grounds that all the super-committees should precede the others. Compare new part 1E1 (d) with current rule 1M7. Is the duplication necessary? I see that you deleted your Executive Committee proposals, presumably because you believe that they were adopted by the Board. Beth sent me a copy of what she thought was adopted, which is a bit different. You are right -- I'll delete 1E1(d). As I remarked earlier, I believe that no specific legislation was adopted. I was listening with the expectation that Rich was going to propose that something be adopted (as he said he would earlier in the day) and I was prepared to argue for postponement. When the time came, he asked for an approval "of the concept" or something like that, but I heard no request for a vote on specific legislation. I shall request that that segment of tape be reviewed. P. 5 Item 59 (c) Why add chief judge to 1H6(b) number inspection? 2. For a rider with a mishap in the last kilometer, I am trying to imagine whether a rider in the lead of a very large group could crash, jump up and finish in a higher place within the group than the last group rider. In this case, it would be better to use a whichever is higher, the actual finishing position or the last rider in the group he was with at the time of the crash. It looks like an official's judgement call, rather than one that can be programmed directly. 1F3 (Entry in races): I addressed these issues in the proposed new Rule 6 (Championship eligibility) and omitted your proposal. Because more eyes are better and it is in the judges' self-interest to make sure that the numbers are pinned on properly. For what it is worth, that is what the FIAC stage race regulations say, though, as you know, I don not consider that to be a compelling argument. P. 6 2B10. Foul Riding, you left out the zig-zagging prohibition of the new FIAC stage race rules, perhaps for a good reason?; It seemed to me that zig-zagging is a special case of making "an abrupt motion so as to interfere with the forward progress of another rider" (1N6). P. 6 2C4 (b) misspelling "break away" not "break way" Right, thanks. P. 10 3C5. Team Classification, I recommend that it be subdivided into a form as follows: 3C5. Team Classification. Team general ... (a) If two or more teams make ... (b) If two or more teams have ... (c) Any team depleted ... Good idea. P. 11 3E2 (c) ... Should such riders be in the lead but being redirected back to the correct route cancels that lead, ... (or some such wording) Right. P. 11 3E3 (b) LOOKS LIKE A BOLD TYPO? Actually, that was deliberate: the "mishap in the last kilometer" case comes up often and it is convenient to be able to spot it quickly. P. 13 3G2 (b) I see you have required a majority vote. I wonder if this is absolutely necessary to spell out, that is should some discretion rest with the presiding commissaire? I know we have already chatted about this; remember the Texas bolix where the under-officials made life miserable for the more rations chief. If we are to use a three-up tribunal, then defining the voting procedure is essential, I believe. I checked this with Beth and se said that in her experience, that is the procedure used in international races. I remember the '84 Tour of Texas all too well. It was unfortunate that our first test of that scheme involved Tom and Willy. Of course, that would not have happened if the Technical Commission had appointed all three referees (mea culpa). Number Standard Standard of Cases Mean Deviation Error

PDheader:1988-10-13 08:23:00-07:00 996c9d77ea6e9588bc9f117cbf32f9a0 ∂13-Oct-88 0823 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Climb every mountain Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Oct 88 08:23:27 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA16137; Thu, 13 Oct 88 10:17:57 CDT Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 10:23:39 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810131523.AA07706@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 13 Oct 88 10:23:39 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Climb every mountain

Group 1 69 41.2271 7.891 .950 Group 2 77 37.4212 7.898 .900 I don't like "mountain bike" as a term because just as in heaven there is no beer, in Minnesota there are no mountains, and yet we can have a good time. Being naive in the intricacies of networking could your give me a clue on the form of a mail address I should use to get faster to you. I assume you mean mail would be better send via ARPA? I asked Andy to rush copies to the TC members and to Margaret Michael to forward to her "officials group". That's a crowd which wanted to comment on proposed legislation. Time is short for them, but it will be better strategy to be able to say they had their chance to review and opine. Speaking of mishap in the last kilometer, I see that you couldn't deal with the notion of a crash on a steep gradient requires a rider to get up and run to the finish. It is a plausible idea, but a little irregular. 3. The disambiguation of the 20% rule is again discretionary. I would enforce it mainly in the case of isolated riders who run out of gas, but I would waive it if a substantial number of riders were held up for reasons which may have been beyond their own control. Les Earnest

PDheader:1988-10-13 11:46:00-07:00 542cca88f2153e96cac694409d9f91ce ∂13-Oct-88 1146 LES re: Climb every mountain To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 13 Oct 88 10:23:39 CDT.]

3 Pooled Variance Estimate 3 Separate Variance Estimate 3 3 F 2-Tail 3 t Degrees of 2-Tail 3 t Degrees of 2-Tail Value Prob. 3 Value Freedom Prob. 3 Value Freedom Prob. 3 3 1.00 .997 3 2.91 144 .004 3 2.91 142.29 .004 Who said there is no beer in heaven? Sounds like a Presbyterian idea. Heaven is what you make of it. > I assume you mean mail would be better send via ARPA? Yup, just like this message. There are unlikely to be any long delays. SCORE Overall Score - Rounded > Speaking of mishap in the last kilometer, I see that you couldn't deal with > the notion of a crash on a steep gradient requires a rider to get up and > run to the finish. It is a plausible idea, but a little irregular. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent The FIAC finish rule made about as much sense to me as prohibiting first place finishes on odd-numbered Tuesdays by people whose names begin with letters in the last half of the alphabet. I wrote up Beth's interpretation of what the Britishers allegedly do, but can be persuaded to replace it with any rule that is fairly clear and makes a modicum of sense. Note that a rider who is used to the "finish anyway" rule would not be at a disadvantage under the FIAC rule, though he might expend a bit of energy in making an unnecessary trip to the finish line. He should learn to do that anyway, in case the mishap was not seen by an official.

PDheader:1988-10-25 11:41:00-07:00 3b2457cfc2cd8caa38ccabb8253d6a63 ∂25-Oct-88 1141 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Next attack on the forest Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Oct 88 11:41:07 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA08939; Tue, 25 Oct 88 13:10:44 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 88 13:12:49 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810251812.AA14307@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 25 Oct 88 13:12:49 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Next attack on the forest

Andy called me to get a copy of my notes from the legislation sessions which he missed. However, I would say that my note-taking was very episodic, and so it would not help him much. There is a district rep. meeting, as you know around November 18-19, and an interesting target would be to have the final rulebook galleys available by then so that there could be a session going over the rule changes with them. Wayne Stetina called last night with some interesting comments. He was concerned by the new 7.63 meter development limit for juniors, because he thinks that rather than equiping themselves with 50 x 14 combos, some will try to go for 54 x ??, and then ... when entering a senior race getting into some real meat stomping clusterfications. Wayne also thought field size or composition was more important than race distances per se, but that it may make sense to distinguish between road events and criteriums, but with a substantially greater length for the roads. He was keen for higher point thresholds for the upper division upgrading also. I noted that while the points scheme was adopted, the rest of the project is in the form of a guideline for the district reps. That also will be an interesting discussion when their conclave is held. 15 1 .7 .7 .7 17 1 .7 .7 1.4 19 1 .7 .7 2.1 21 1 .7 .7 2.7 22 2 1.4 1.4 4.1 24 1 .7 .7 4.8 26 1 .7 .7 5.5 27 2 1.4 1.4 6.8 28 4 2.7 2.7 9.6 29 2 1.4 1.4 11.0 30 4 2.7 2.7 13.7 31 1 .7 .7 14.4 32 7 4.8 4.8 19.2 33 4 2.7 2.7 21.9 34 8 5.5 5.5 27.4 35 3 2.1 2.1 29.5 36 6 4.1 4.1 33.6 37 8 5.5 5.5 39.0 38 8 5.5 5.5 44.5 39 7 4.8 4.8 49.3 40 9 6.2 6.2 55.5 41 7 4.8 4.8 60.3 42 7 4.8 4.8 65.1 43 2 1.4 1.4 66.4 44 10 6.8 6.8 73.3 45 6 4.1 4.1 77.4 46 7 4.8 4.8 82.2 47 6 4.1 4.1 86.3 48 4 2.7 2.7 89.0 49 1 .7 .7 89.7 50 3 2.1 2.1 91.8 51 3 2.1 2.1 93.8 52 1 .7 .7 94.5 53 4 2.7 2.7 97.3 55 1 .7 .7 97.9 56 3 2.1 2.1 100.0 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 Correlations: AIMP ADEC ACOR AEFF AREL AINC AIMP 1.0000** .6856** .7646** .8684** .7880** .7853** ADEC .6856** 1.0000** .7751** .8049** .7521** .6856** ACOR .7646** .7751** 1.0000** .8578** .8040** .7787** AEFF .8684** .8049** .8578** 1.0000** .8478** .8905** AREL .7880** .7521** .8040** .8478** 1.0000** .8218** AINC .7853** .6856** .7787** .8905** .8218** 1.0000** AREF .8088** .7720** .7764** .8714** .7788** .8003** AOFF .8411** .7096** .7688** .8560** .7712** .7780** Correlations: AREF AOFF AIMP .8088** .8411** ADEC .7720** .7096** ACOR .7764** .7688** AEFF .8714** .8560** AREL .7788** .7712** AINC .8003** .7780** AREF 1.0000** .8549** AOFF .8549** 1.0000** BTW - I'm sending this one by our SUN system, could you let me know if it appears to have been trasmitted via ARPA? N of cases: 146 1-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** - .001

PDheader:1988-10-26 15:35:00-07:00 d8eef10c7972ac8cbbca125259d79727 ∂26-Oct-88 1535 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:HEWETT@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Bike complaints Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 88 15:35:45 PDT Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04073; Wed, 26 Oct 88 15:35:45 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 15:31:50 PDT From: Mike Hewett <HEWETT@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Bike complaints To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu In-Reply-To: <4645@polya.Stanford.EDU> Message-Id: <12441600333.14.HEWETT@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>

Les, I want to write to somebody at Stanford about the sorry condition of some of the bikeways around campus. Who do I write to? Mike -------

PDheader:1988-10-26 15:49:00-07:00 483fa7c2e4b7fa37febbb7d12971c7f4 ∂26-Oct-88 1549 LES re: Bike complaints To: HEWETT@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 26 Oct 88 15:31:50 PDT.]

There are at least three possible contacts: the bicycle safety committee (or whatever they call themselves), whose addess I don't recall at the moment, a bicycle safety coordinator in the Stanford Police Department, whose last name is Smith as I recall, or the bicycle planner in the Planning Office, namely Bob Segar (Ext. 5-2112). I would suggest starting with Segar. -Les

PDheader:1988-10-26 16:04:00-07:00 7c7aed304c7e9184d90b822146e404cf ∂26-Oct-88 1604 LES Legislation To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

I just noticed that we apparently tabled Item 9[b] on the legislative agenda and did not get back to it. That was an unfortunate oversight. As I recall, there was some little thing that needed to be fiddled, but I don't remember what. Just to be sure, is this what your notes show? And do you recall what the problem was?

PDheader:1988-10-26 20:17:00-07:00 b5696e2fbd45bde9b98952de349aa8aa ∂26-Oct-88 2017 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Legislation Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 88 20:17:21 PDT Received: from adonis.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA00120; Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:17:00 CDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:16:14 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810270316.AA09680@adonis.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by adonis.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:16:14 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Legislation

Looks reasonable provided that you believe that performing arithmetic operations on encodings of fuzzy concepts makes sense. I am not a believer, but I acknowledge that it is a widely accepted practice. Most evaluators appear to have been grading on the same skewed scale -- isn't it wonderful that nearly everyone is above average? Unfortuately, chance variations in the grading standards of the evaluators is likely to affect the results at least as much as variations in the abilities of the evaluatees. Any evaluators who objectively graded on an absolute scale that would yield an average score (3.5) over the population of all officials effectively screwed their evaluatees. BTW, what is "valid percent" as opposed to "percent?" Also howcum there are two tables each for impatiality and respect measures? Are you trying to create more respect? Oh %$#@!*()! Now that's a bad deal, because, as you know I was trying to get rid of some procdural garbage. What I recall is that there was something in the proposal that "didn't work." I know Stan Solin was alarmed because he thought it was going to make riders pay a fee for a renewal if their club never renewed at all (or something like that). My notes are worth very little. I should have learned from Boyden not to let your diddle with my good stuff. I found myself perusing through old Cyclops, and note that you have used several typestyles for the masthead. Interestingly, you seem to have returned in 1988 to the same font as 1985, after several interlewds with another font.

PDheader:1988-10-26 22:16:00-07:00 5d8a219fd845fd7952e652f204f5602f ∂26-Oct-88 2216 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Legislation Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 88 22:16:37 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA01261; Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:16:19 CDT Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:13:58 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810270513.AA15294@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:13:58 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Legislation Thanks for the quick reply:

Yes, I noticed that about Patti also. While she may have had a point -- in some mountain bike races they seem to prefer a trail so narrow that no one may pass -- I am of the opinion that the NORBA rules are not so enthralling that they merit replication, and Patti seemed at that moment to be convinced that the USCF's regs should be identical. It isn't easy to disagree with some of your mutterings, they are in keeping with your predilections and delight in all matters digital and binary. As you know, the mandate was to create a more "objective" method of rating officials, where objectivity probably has as much to do with "politics" as any thing. The risk of evaluators using different scales or standards is always present. Even when prospective students ask for letters of reference, Professor X's sense of an excellent student may be quite different from Professor Y, so turning to words alone won't resolve it all. I'd have trouble coming up with a quantitive reliable measure that really discounts personal viewpoints of the raters. About the only one's I have thought of are counting the number of letters of complaint or praise that have come to the office. Of course, once it becomes known that this is the form of evaluation, it would get mucked up by letter writing campaigns! Valid percent vs percent columns would be different in the case where there is "missing data" and the program knows about the coding used for it. As I mentioned, I replaced missing data with the modal/median response, so the two columns are identical. (I am using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) to do the tabulations, so that's what it comes out with. I had inadvertantly edited the table label for the "CHIEFREF" item, which immediately follows the "INCRSPCT" question. Thanks for detecting my sin of omission. Yup, I've read a little about Lucida. I keep getting font catalogs from ABdo

PDheader:1988-10-27 03:59:00-07:00 603f9fe4cd4c34531e8aa717596bfd59 ∂27-Oct-88 0359 LES fonts To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:13:58 CDT.]

Included in the report was a table with a T-Test to determine if the difference in means for Cat 1 and Cat 2 officials appeared to be "statistically" significant. The difference was about 4 points on the overall score, and the T-Test supports the conclusion that 1's are rated higher than 2's. (I am glad for that, although it would be interesting to discover the opposite.) Yup, Adobe generally overprices their stuff. As far as I know only Imagen and Adobe offer Lucida on laser printers. My group was first to license and offer Lucida, of course. I presume that had the project included Cat 3 and Cat 4 officials, there would be even lower rankings for those folks as well. The interpretation of the cut points would presumably be more complimentary to the officials in the higher brackets. Instead of the top 25 percent corresponding to a score of 45, it would be a more elite division. Bitstream has some fairly decent fonts for some printers. Some other friends of mine who call themselves "Folio" should enter the market shortly with some other good quality fonts. Therefore, although I too would have prefered results which were more centered (closer to a mean of 3.5) the fact that the typical response was nearer to 5 isn't all that surprising or disheartening considering that we were working only on the higher categories.

PDheader:1988-10-28 00:46:00-07:00 a4a626fdd85b9ba4a88ebf106cd636ce ∂28-Oct-88 0046 LES Legislative results To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

An account of the legislative results went in the mail 10 minutes ago to you, Andy B., Jerry L., Dale H., and Rich D. Anyone else you can think of who should get an early copy? Preferably someone who took notes? That is how social science mumbles, as you must know.

PDheader:1988-10-29 15:34:00-07:00 78c727e0aa16d637a7fab9b0e474b314 ∂29-Oct-88 1534 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Never-ending search for truth, justice, and UCI conformity Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 88 15:34:06 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA00271; Sat, 29 Oct 88 17:33:33 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Oct 88 17:35:39 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8810292235.AA03303@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Sat, 29 Oct 88 17:35:39 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Never-ending search for truth, justice, and UCI conformity

PDheader:1988-10-29 16:39:00-07:00 28ae6b14ed920f6845208d9558eb3b7a ∂29-Oct-88 1639 LES re: Never-ending search for truth, justice, and UCI conformity To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Sat, 29 Oct 88 17:35:39 CDT.]

The USCF has scheduled a press conference for Saturday January 21 to announce that the USCF, NORBA and PRO have joined forces under one roof. USCF will govern amateur racing, NORBA will do it in the dirt and PRO will keep the big boys in line. > I am wondering whether to grumble at the FIAC meeting about all this. Members of the COORS Light(not Lite) team are: Greg LeMond, Alexi Grewal, Todd Gogulski, Mike Carter, Chris Bailey, Andy Paulin, Chris Huber, Dutchman Michael Zanoli, and Greg Oravetz. No mention of Doug Shapiro or Alan McCormack who have supposedly signed as well. Do you mean, should you grumble about the reasonableness of the proposed sprint rules or something about the procedures they are following? LeMond will be paid a reported $250,000 to ride the Tour of Americas(Feb 15-26) and the Trump Tour(May 5-14), but he insists that his primary focus will be to win the 1989 Tour de France(there is only one, you know). I just went through my legislation file to get another look at that stuff and find that it is not there -- it appears to have been among the materials that were in my briefcase when it got snatched. BTW, Susan Bookspan called a few minutes ago, inquiring about whether a record by James Fry that was allegedly set the weekend we were there was approved. She said that she had tried to reach you at home, without success. I said that I was fairly sure we did not approve anything that showed up that weekend but that I would tell you she called.

PDheader:1988-10-31 10:30:00-08:00 68cea71a0ae391c5be508056b1a053f8 ∂31-Oct-88 1030 LES Legislative results revisited To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Having spent the weekend editing a draft of the rulebook and staring at the legislative results, a copy of which should reach you about now, I can report that there are three known errors in my October 28 report: Items 45a and 45b are marked as "Passed" but they actually failed. Item 55 is unmarked; it passed. Item 58 is shown as "Tabled," but it actually passed. I obviously worked too late a couple of nights. I remain appalled by the fact that the archaic typsetting system that is being used requires that indexes and tables of contents be compiled manually. Furthermore, it appears that not a single index term has been added in the last three years, even though a number of new terms have been introduced, such as last year's "citizens race," "club ride, "development event," and "event permit." Aaargh! It is clear that no one in the office has taken responsibility for the rulebook. Legislative success Given that you introduced the idea of legislative competition after the last House of Delegates meeting, I decided to compile the score for the session just past. Admittedly, counting items "passed" and "failed" is a crude measure of success, given that some items are much hairier than others, but I list the raw data below for everyone who put more than one item on the agenda. It was a little hard to establish unique parentage for some items that included ideas from multiple sources, most often you and me, but I generally assigned those to the originator. In order of decreasing success rate: Name Passed Failed Success Earnest 53 8 87% Voxland 20 4 83 Solin 6 2 75 Saling 3 2 60 S. Ball 1 1 50 I will give you credit for tackling and winning a tough issue this time, namely categorized races. It will take a few years to entirely digest that. Bruce

PDheader:1988-11-03 17:02:00-08:00 215a3c1591ba3357323b80285ccfd0e0 ∂03-Nov-88 1702 LES re: And how are you? To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 3 Nov 88 17:28:10 CST.]

Hmm, the virus has got you too? Most of the Stanford Un*x systems have been infected today; a massive immunization project is underway. I trust that you got my message on the legislative box score the other day. Better luck next year.

PDheader:1988-11-03 20:29:00-08:00 5bef4b78b91309c288982a40787cacef ∂03-Nov-88 2029 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: And how are you? Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Nov 88 20:29:45 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA15897; Thu, 3 Nov 88 22:28:50 CDT Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 22:26:53 CST id AA27208; Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:07:39 CST Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:11:29 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8811040426.AA21069@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 3 Nov 88 22:26:53 CST Message-Id: <8901182111.AA01721@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:11:29 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: And how are you? Subject: Re: News

I suspect that your results were inflated artificially by dividing items into little pieces each of which was certain to pass. As you know, I always blunder by submitting encompassing proposals, of which only a few pass. I too am steaming about this one, while trying to recollect how Dave and I handled anything similar. I am pissed that a press conference is scheduled without the Exec. Committee (let alone the whole BOD) having any kind of a clue about the details. As nearly as I can tell, the US-PRO proposition involves neither the transfer of the FICP recognition nor a proposal to definitely transfer it at a later date. I have seen no formal document or contract or letter of understanding. I'm afraid that Richard is too inclined towards a "let's just be friends" and worry about the disagreements later, rather than reducing to writing what formal controls and structures are envisioned. Looks to me only like it's a Committee to Spend Money, and if things are nice in the future there will be other things to talk about. I suppose that it isn't as bad as all that, but without information, it is hard to be sure. I get the creepy feeling that were back in the Fraysse era where we reach agreements first then try to fill in the potholes. The risk is that the agreements are too sloppy to be useful or workable. I keep harping on rules. Who adopts them, is it a common rulebook that we are talking about, etc. Unfortunately the Executive Committee like the Board as a whole hates details like legislation, and so doesn't seem to grasp (unless I am doing a shitty job of explaining) why it is so important to be diligent and circumspect about regulations, by-laws, contracts, and the like.

PDheader:1988-11-04 14:59:00-08:00 d312aff7f173167b7d7e4da7726e03bd ∂04-Nov-88 1459 LES Cyclocross natz & velodromers meeting To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I received in the mail today a copy of a letter from Andy B. to the officials for the cyclocross nationals who are to serve as jury of appeals. My recollection is that we were going to appoint the same trio as both the appeals jury and protest jury, but we apparently did not communicate this to Andy (I just spoke with him on the phone). If you agree with this recollection, please communicate with Andy. If not, then please argue with me. Incidentally, the second paragraph of Andy's letter tells them that their expenses will be paid, but does so in a way that is certain to confuse them. It also neglects remind them that reports of the results will be needed. I also received in today's mail an agenda for a planned Velodrome Managers and Promoters Meeting on November 19-20, which overlaps the district reps meeting. The agenda presents a detailed schedule but neglects to mention the location of the meeting. I guessed that it was to be in Colorado Springs and Andy confirms this. This agenda repeats over and over the abominable identifier "USCF Board of Director." It has now been about a decade since that evidence of mass illiteracy surfaced and I made fun of it in a letter to _Competitive Cycling_. I guess that I should try again in the next Cyclops.

PDheader:1988-11-11 13:47:00-08:00 eaae0c6cb6e414672c4681a5b1ac8a9f ∂11-Nov-88 1347 LES re: A greater Rule Book To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:29:56 CST.]

> I am of the opinion that the table for the elimination rounds in > Sprints for championship events (was it for 16-24 competitors?) that > we have adopted should be included as a rule book appendix. I agree. District reps meeting I finally got the district reps meeting schedule yesterday and noticed that I am slated to talk Friday morning at 8:30 AM, which would require that I get there Thursday evening. Unfortunately, this conflicts with a class I am taking at Stanford on the ancient Olympics, which meets Thursday evenings. I tried to talk to Andy today, but find that he is taking the day off. I see that you are scheduled to talk on Saturday morning at 8:00. I wonder if it would work for me to swap with you? I've missed two classes alrready because of the USCF Board meeting and an ACLU meeting that I chaired and would like to avoid missing any more if possible. You have probably noticed that the Bylaws got reordered because of some confusion on Andy's part. Also, I had added titles throughout the Bylaws and Racing Rules in the last draft, but none of that showed up in the stuff that I received this week. Grumble! Disclaimer As you know, I have been agitating to get rid of the useless disclaimer on the first page of the rulebook, to make room for a "What's new" column. I asked Jerry Lace to review it with Bart Enoch, which he did but neglected to get back to me After Jerry turned up sick, I went after Bart. After another four day chase, I finally reached him today. I predicted to Bart that his assessment of the disclaimer would be that "It can't hurt," which is the standard bullshit response of lawyers. He laughed and said "That is very insightful." In view of his predictable response, I plan to put that piece of garbage on the inside front cover. I had earlier reviewed this question with Everett Hincliffe, the lawyer who defended the Buchan case. His response had been the same, but when I pointed out that we already had three lines of defense on this issue, he agreed that it appeared to be redundant. (We require that each rider sign a release on his license application, there are disclaimers in Rules 1I2b and 1J1, and each rider must sign a race entry release.) Entry form When I mentioned that the entry form had been revised and substantially expanded in 1985, Hinchcliffe cautioned that in view of the fact that the courts have reviewed and upheld the earlier version (even though they didn't in the Buchan case) that it would likely be more sensible to stick with the old release form. I mentioned this to Bart, who said that he thought Brian had revised it to take into account some new law, but that he would look into it. I plan to send him a copy of the old one. The older form has the substantial advantage, in my view, of being simpler and therefore more credible to juries, who distrust excessive fine print. In fact, I believe that even that one was more complicated than it should have been. It is important to have an adequate release, but it also important that it be readable and understandable by the person who signs it. If you approach this by asking a lawyer to write a release that provides maximum defense against liability, you get a long document, such as the one we now have, that only a lawyer would read and that looks to a jury like a blatant attempt to evade all responsibility. Lawyers should be consulted in such matters, but common sense should prevail.

PDheader:1988-11-11 14:15:00-08:00 9f6aabd7bb9994984668db7a0eefeea7 ∂11-Nov-88 1415 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: A greater Rule Book Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Nov 88 14:15:51 PST Received: from gsun2.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA02817; Fri, 11 Nov 88 16:14:15 CDT Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 16:17:10 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8811112217.AA03468@gsun2.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun2.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 11 Nov 88 16:17:10 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: A greater Rule Book

Can't swap, as I won't be arriving until Friday night. I would think that whatever is Friday afternoon is swapabble, but without knowing the schedule I can't say for sure. That is why I was able to propose it, I guess. Disclaimer Advocacy: As you know, I'm in favor of it. Here are some further recollections of some of the background: I am receiving your position paper on Dave's book. I doubt that many seasoned readers will agree with you view that the rule book is clear and precise in all things, but, your are the EDITOR of Cyclops. As usual you are persisting with the notion that the USCF actually had a role in the conduct and organization of the Olympics, which of course was not the case. Siracusa knew that very well despite the trail of damaged egos it left throughout the Federation, yours included. I don't see much inconsistency in Dave (and myself) attempting to manipulate what clarity there was in the rule book in trying to deal with the messy call for the Chicago meeting. I don't think David meant that the Bylaws were hoplessly unusuable. Seems to me each year you and I find something that's out of synch, most recently the suspension authority of the Executive Director and Technical Commission which we didn't entirely clear out of the T.C. until the most recent revamping. I was concerned because triathlons and some bandit races were being run, according to their announcements, "according to the racing rules of the USCF." In such an instance we would not have the actual releases from athletes on file with a licenses application, and possibly none for the event itself. So it goes. Further their is an avoidance of the term "safety", that is the rule book, or compliance with the rules, does not guarantee safety. The purposes are orderly conduct, operation and management. That is a glimpse, anyway. On the standard release, possibly some parts could be shortened, but I have always had trouble visualizing which I would delete. (The drug-testing portion being the most likely). I have sometimes wondered whether the release could consist of a short form, followed by an exposition of the form ...

PDheader:1988-11-14 14:06:00-08:00 459e92f871ab34e06b31d17ab69ac79f ∂14-Nov-88 1406 LES Probenicid & friends To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I talked to the lady on the USOC drug hot line today. Indeed, probenocid has been added to the IOC banned list; unfortunately, it is in a new drug category called "Pharmacological, chemical, and physical manipulation of urine," so we can't simply slip it into the list. She also remarked that several other substances have been added "subject to certain restrictions," namely alcohol, local anesthetics, cortico steroids, and human corionic gonadrotrophin. She agreed that alcohol should not be on the list for cycling, however. She seemed to be saying that local anesthetics have been added to avoid their abuse as pain killers in situations where an injured athlete could aggravate an injury. Makes sense, but that is another new direction. I asked if cortico steroids (which include cortisone) could be classed as anabolic steroids; she said that they couldn't. My daughter-in-law who is a medical librarian tells me that corionic gonadotrophin is the substance that is tested for to determine if someone is pregnant. She is sending me some literature about all this, which I will happily share. Wish we had heard about this earlier. I'm afraid that it is too late to do the needed restructuring of the medical control regulations to deal with it this year. Incidentally, this is an example of why I oppose the absolute cutoff of amendments on November 1. I think I'll try again to get that turned around next year.

PDheader:1988-11-15 13:17:00-08:00 34f081b966c4a5aca023d4681b6e045b ∂15-Nov-88 1317 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:pardo@june.cs.washington.edu Re: Worldwatch Institute on Bicycles Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Nov 88 13:17:11 PST Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08205; Tue, 15 Nov 88 11:50:37 PST Received: by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+) id AA08564; Sun, 13 Nov 88 11:12:33 PST Date: Sun, 13 Nov 88 11:12:33 PST From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Return-Path: <pardo> Message-Id: <8811131912.AA08564@june.cs.washington.edu>

Phooey, I was hoping for a more acrimonious reply, or at least the next segment of your review. Tah Tah, I'll have to get the rest after the Seward Neighborhood Band rehearsal tonight. I have been fiddling with some of the text which I sent you about the officials project, a few more forms came in, but they don't affect anything anyway.

PDheader:1988-11-15 17:40:00-08:00 1ae29b1e5dbe1c7ff6ef9db5e6fe0833 ∂15-Nov-88 1740 pardo@june.cs.washington.edu Re: Worldwatch Institute on Bicycles Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Nov 88 17:38:32 PST Received: from localhost by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+) id AA08142; Tue, 15 Nov 88 17:36:01 PST Return-Path: <pardo@june.cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <8811160136.AA08142@june.cs.washington.edu> To: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Worldwatch Institute on Bicycles In-Reply-To: Your message of 15 Nov 88 14:07:00 -0800.

<PBrJo@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 17:36:00 PST From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu I'm happy to report that the major problem with bike paths in the Seattle area is that there aren't enough of them. They are *generally* well-maintained, low glass count, well-paved, clear of brush, easy entry/exit, small grades, go useful places, ... The new bridge to Mercer Island will include a 8-plus-foot wide bike lane. The bike path from Ravenna Park to Greenlake is the *innermost* lane along a divided road, thus you only ever have to worry about left-turning cars (infrequent, with a 20-foot grass strip :-).

PDheader:1988-12-01 15:16:00-08:00 1f4acf8e41cccdda78e70b0423a84bdb ∂01-Dec-88 1516 LES New events & juries To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I trust that you have been queried about the National Cycling League. Sounds like compost to me, but you never know. Sorry for the slow response. I had a discussion with Marilyn Allen the last night of the district reps meeting in which I mentioned the plan to integrate protest and appeals juries. She argued that the chief referee should not be involved with the appeals process inasmuch as the peak appeals activity is just before the start of racing, which is the time that the chief referee shoud be concentrating on planning and organizing. She also argued against including the chief judge in protest hearings on the grounds that the judge should stay focussed on getting results out. These seem to me to be valid points. Perhaps we should consider going to a scheme in which there is a jury foreman who deals with both protests and appeals and nothing else and other working officials who serve on protest or appeals juries, but not necessarily both. For example, the chief referee might serve on the protest jury and the cheif judge might serve on the appeals jury. Attached is an article from Usenet about an interesting new event. I think that the USCF should get involved. You will probably disagree. -------------------------------- From polya!labrea!decwrl!granite!hsu Thu Dec 1 13:17:12 PST 1988 Article 3288 of su.events: Path: polya!labrea!decwrl!granite!hsu >From: hsu@granite (Felix S Hsu) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles,ba.general,decpa.fun,rec.misc,rec.photo,rec.travel,su.events Subject: Announcing Boston-Montreal-Boston '89 Message-ID: <8812010152.AA21493@granite.DEC.COM> Date: 1 Dec 88 01:52:06 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 193 Xref: polya rec.bicycles:7344 ba.general:5178 rec.misc:975 rec.photo:4324 rec.travel:5120 su.events:3288 [ed: for you sports photo nuts, the BMB '88 was covered by a professional shooting ads for Pontiac.] Boston Montreal Boston 89 Back in 1987, even before we had ridden the Paris Brest Paris, some friends and I thought it would be neat to have a sister event on this side of the ocean. The Boston Montreal Boston was born as a 1200km in 90 hours randonnee to be run every four years in between PBP's (i.e. in 1989 and 1993). As a trial run, we did one in August 1988. Why have such a ride? We had several reasons. First, it helps to better prepare North Americans for randonneuring (a French term for the type of cycling done in PBP). Not that the Canadians need any preparation -- by all accounts, they seem to have the technique down quite well. The sport is somewhat new to the US though, and so we are relatively inexperienced in it. Secondly, it attracts new riders to the randonneuring scene. One of the problems with randonneuring in the US is that there is little incentive to participate in randonnees during the non PBP years. With rides like PBP and BMB, there is more incentive to stay in shape and participate on a more frequent basis. Finally, it encourages the exchange of ideas between the international cast of participants. By all accounts, BMB 88 accomplished all that I had hoped for. Among the riders who had ridden PBP '87 and BMB '88, there was general agreement that the BMB course and ride were tougher and that it gave participants excellent preparation for the '91 PBP. This had been a goal when I designed the course -- to be as close as possible to the PBP course, only tougher. There were many hills (which most Americans were surprised to find in Paris), and many flat spots in which the wind was a factor. It was a good mix of terrain which challenged all the skills of the participants. In addition, we did attract several new riders who successfully completed the ride and intend to come back for more randonneuring next year. The one difference between BMB and PBP was that its small size necessitated a "near audax" style. This meant that riders were given a schedule for the 764 miles and 90 hours and that they tried to stay as close to that schedule as possible. What this meant for the organizers was that the checkpoint staffing requirements were simplified. I hope that next year this will not be necessary and riders will be able to ride as far as they want on any given day as long as they maintain the minimum overall speed for the course. Note that the schedule given this year proved to be quite challenging for everyone involved and there was general agreement that any faster pace would be significantly more difficult. The daily schedule was 232 miles, 206 miles, 164 miles, and 162 miles. The decreasing difficulty was both a physical and psychological boost for riders. They were freshest on the first day, and therefore best prepared to do the longest distance (and hardest terrain, too). After they had completed the hardest day, they could rationalize that the days only got easier from then on. If the whole course (out and back) were divided into thirds, the first and last thirds were the hilliest, and the middle third the flatest. The first third headed west from Boston and cut off the southwest corner of New Hampshire where riders met the first of the major climbs (see the elevation chart below). Similar to PBP, the first control station was located about 160 kms from the start, in the southeast corner of Vermont. From there on, the controls were placed every 90 to 100 kms apart. The rest of the course for the first day was spent climbing the hills of the Green Mountains, with at least four more major climbs at Andover, VT, Weston, Killington, and Middlebury Gap. The Gap seemed to be a fitting end for the first day as it was the toughest climb on the course. Note that although the gap isn't all that high, it is quite steep. It starts out with a gradual incline and evolves into a grade which is over 13 percent! The second day consisted of short hills between Middlebury and Burlington, scenic flats through Grand Isle on Lake Champlain, and flat farmland (the biggest hill was a 10 foot dip in the road) from Rouses Point, NY (the border crossing) up to Montreal. Since it is difficult to access Montreal on bicycle, the turnaround was located just across the St. Lawrence River in St. Lambert, mile 382. The remainder of the day was spent returning to Rouses Point where most riders spent the night. Day 3 took the riders back over the Gap to Ludlow, VT, leaving the remaining climbs for the shortest and last day. On the fourth and hottest day, most riders finished in the late afternoon or early evening. The group was quite diverse. On one end of the scale was Martin Heath from Toronto. Martin truly embodied the randonneur spirit by carrying his espresso maker (stove and all!) with him in his knapsack the whole way and mixing up a cup of brew at several of the stops. Jeff Vogel from NY also brought randonneuring experience to the field. Jeff finished the tough '87 PBP in 61 hours, and although he did not attempt the same pace for BMB, he led the group by completing the course in 81 hours. All three women (Pamala Blalock, Linda Bousquet, and Diane Owens) finished the course in good time. Diane was the only one in the whole group who didn't think that it was hot (she's from Texas). In the neophyte category Matt Britton stood out. Matt had never ridden more than about 70 miles when he showed up at the first 200km qualifier back in May. In fact, he never really thought that he could finish the 200km. Instead, he finished all the qualifiers, and went on to finish the BMB, vowing to return next year. Although some would not approve of such fast paced training for future randonneur greats, Matt is an example of how a ride like the BMB can be turned from a seemingly impossible task to an accomplishment to be proud of. Overseeing the ride throughout was a small but efficient crew. Each of the checkpoints was staffed, and many of them had large quantities of food on hand. The technical support vehicle supplied by 10 Speed Spoke's Pierce Gafgen (randonneur and crew chief for Nancy Reposo in the 88 RAAM) was a valuable addition to the team. It seems certain that the job of the crew was almost as difficult as that of the riders. In any case, they were an essential part of the event. The motivation for having a crew was threefold. First, I wanted to have BMB look as much like PBP as possible. Hence, the control stations had facilities for sleeping, showering, and eating whenever possible. Second, by supplying these services, and discouraging personal crews from attending (in fact, those crews were only allowed to support their riders at the checkpoints and not on the course), I was able to reduce congestion on the roads and at the checkpoints. It was important to have the flavor of the ride be as close to PBP as possible. This had the additional benefit of allowing all riders to participate on an equal basis, whether or not they had a crew along. Finally, since the towns along the course are mostly closed down at night, it would be near impossible for riders to complete the course without the services provided by the crew at the stops. Although several people assumed that they could get through without using the facilities and supplies provided by us, this notion was quickly dispelled. The success rate was quite high. 19 started the ride, and 12 finished the whole event without being sagged. Of the seven who were sagged, the distances that they rode ranged from 100km to 1100km. I do not believe that the presence of the crew had any bearing on this rate. Overall, the event was a success and will go on next year. It is scheduled for August 10 through 13, 1989, and will be open to anyone who has ridden the qualifiers in the specified time limits. The course will be similar to this year's except that it will be closer to 1200 km (750 miles), and will have some improvements made where we feel we can improve on the safety of the riders. If all goes as planned, we will eliminate the daily schedule so that riders are free to pace themselves as they like. Of course they will still have to meet minimum speed requirements concurrent with the 90 hour time limit. Anyone wishing further information on the Boston Montreal Boston ('88 or '89), or the qualifers for it should contact Charles Lamb Box 721 Burlington, Mass 01803-5721 uunet!odi!cwl odi!cwl@uunet.uu.net Boston Qualifier Schedule: 200km May 6, 1989 300km May 20, 1989 400km June 10, 1989 600km June 24, 1989 BMB '89 August 10 - 13, 1989 Approximate Elevations along the route: . * * . * * 2000' * * . * * . * * * E . * * * * L . * * * * E 1500' * * * * V . * * * * A . * * * * T . * * *** ** * I . * * *** ** * O 1000' * * ****** * N . * * * ****** * . * * * ******** . * * * ******** . * * * ******** 500' * * * ******** * . * **** ******** * . * **** ******** * . * **** ******** * * . * * **** ******** * * * * 0 * * **** ******** * * * * 0....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > Has anyone ever sued hair-net manufacturers? (Boston) M I L E S (Montreal) Leather helmet manufacturers have been sued many times. The most recent case was that of Barbara Buchan, who collected about $1 million from the helmet distributor and was awarded $2.3 million from the USCF, the latter being currently under appeal. > It seems to me that they violate even the implied warranty of > merchantability, in that the product is not good for anything. On the > other hand, I guess everyone _knows_ they're worthless, so maybe that's > OK.

PDheader:1988-12-02 09:14:00-08:00 1b4d8b78264a921d4f179aba37115004 ∂02-Dec-88 0914 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu New concept, which I call "the wheel" Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Dec 88 09:14:01 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA05542; Fri, 2 Dec 88 11:10:49 CDT Date: Fri, 2 Dec 88 11:10:21 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8812021710.AA00405@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 2 Dec 88 11:10:21 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: New concept, which I call "the wheel"

I disagree. They are better than going bare, as the dimwit pros still do. Les Earnest

PDheader:1988-12-02 14:03:00-08:00 93faf162747715227bf815a0e10e7468 ∂02-Dec-88 1403 LES Juries future and past To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 2 Dec 88 11:10:21 CST.]

Your final comment on Agnew (I'll bet he was riding crooked.) made my evening. Many thanks. - mike (a short live resident of Maryland -- during Agnew and all the other crooks). > Were you talking about races generally or big-time races? Mike Newton Caltech Submillimeter Observatory ex-communicated Pasadena President, POB 4339 / Hilo HI 96720 Beach Bums Anonymous 808 935 1909 (but not in the mornings) Big time. Mail: newton@csvax.caltech.edu Which is forwarded to: kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu UUCP cit-vax!kahuna!newton ;-D on ( Not perfect, but progressing ) Pardo > Even though the tech. commission isn't likely as a group to be attending > any races, I still like the UCI concept. If it's there, then being an > appeal jury is something good for it to do. As a matter of fact, that was another of Marilyn's suggestions: given that the Technical Commission should have someone at each major race to review the officialing and general conduct, why not make that person also work as jury foreman? Bostic-Fry appeal As you probably know, I have been reviewing the Bostic-Fry appeal, partly because we got some bad press and because the reported findings of the jury did not make sense to me. I have now read the text of the appeals, Mark Hodges counter-arguments, and the jury finding and have talked to two of the three jurors (Marilyn Allen and Jim Black) and plan to talk to the third (John Asaro) shortly. It appears that the jury blew it. They reached the conclusion that the selection process was incorrect and that Fry should have been on the team instead of Paulin, but Jim Black then invented an intricate theory of why they could not change anything and sold it to the rest of the jury. The jury ended up deferring the decision to the "Selection Committee," which was apparently composed of Fraysse, Saling and probably some unknown others. In any case, Dot was already off to Korea by that time and the Selection Committee never met. Meanwhile, the appellants took their case to the USOC, where the arbitrator rubber-stamped the coaches selections. The key issue was the conduct of the "race-off" on which the final selection was based. It was conducted without any USCF officials under a set of invented rules that were in conflict with those in the Rulebook and the timing data upon which the coaches allegedly based their decisions were not produced. In fact, the descriptions of how timing data were supposedly collected by the coaching staff was so fuzzy that the jury did not believe any of it. Nevertheless, Jim Black argued that the jury could not quibble with the conduct of the race. He cited the last sentence of Bylaw H, Section 1, which says "Decisions by race officials on the conduct of a Federation race, including disqualification for alleged misconduct, may not be appealed under this bylaw." Never mind that this was not a Federation race (I don't think they had a permit) or that there were no licensed officials running it. Other problems were that the report of the jury was written by Black and was never distributed to other jury members. Also, the jury was never paid for their services; in fact, there is some evidence that a bunch of juries have not been paid. The evidence points to Susan as the source of that problem. We can modify the wording of the Appeals bylaw next year to make it clearer that it *is* the responsibility of the jury to reach a decision, but it seems that a "sea lawyer" can always find a way to evade responsibility. I find Black's handling of this case disgusting; I would not recommend him for jury duty any time soon. I guess that I should report on this to the Board (in executive session) at the next meeting. This may be a bit awkward in that Paulin is on the Board. "Reality is a lie that hasn't been found out yet..."

PDheader:1989-01-01 21:05:00-08:00 6bfd49e6a8a9de30b5a762598003ab1a ∂01-Jan-89 2105 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Cyclocloss Natz Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jan 89 21:05:24 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA23822; Sun, 1 Jan 89 23:03:08 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Jan 89 23:01:02 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8901020501.AA10783@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 1 Jan 89 23:01:02 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Cyclocloss Natz

Les Earnest To your questions: Yes, Bruce mentioned that they had met, I told him that if their decision was based on the fact that Andy and I had determined Weijak was ineligible (that is that they couldn't review a decision made by the Technical Chairman or staff), then that they should reconsider the argument because this would in effect deny due process to the athlete. I doubt that I told Bruce he had the unilateral power, that wouldn't make much sense for me to say it. Of course, something might have been misinterpreted. For example, if the appeals jury were to determine that Weijak was eligible, that would not constitute a problem for the people that made the determination. I made a point of stressing that, because officials get so uptight about upgrading and appointments. I didn't want to appear to be forcing the appeals group to support my opinion or to be threatening them with future reprisals if they decided something that was not what Andy and I had already concluded. The thrust of Mike Fraysse's call to me had been that the appeals group didn't think it could overrule a decision of the Technical Chairman or Technical Director. I agreed to remind Bruce that the appeals group was there to consider all the issue, and not simply rubber stamp earlier administrative decisions.

PDheader:1989-01-03 17:35:00-08:00 fda7b917315a5229dbda2f3fdabaa752 ∂03-Jan-89 1735 LES Miscellany To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Thanks for filling out the picture. It remains unclear how Bruce reached the conclusion that he could act unilaterally, but I suspect that Fraysse's "authoritative" guidance was the primary influence. FYI, the Rulebook update is still incomplete. The typesetters have repeatedly claimed that their computer is malfunctioning, but that makes no sense to me -- computers are usually easily reparable. I got about half of it last Thursday and found that nearly all of the horrible errors had been fixed, but there were still quite a few lesser blunders. I have yet to see the Table of Contents, Racing Rules, most of the appendices, or the Index. After getting both Andy and Jerry to agree to bulk mail the Rulebooks some time ago, I discovered last Friday that Andy had reversed himself on the grounds that "the savings would be insignificant." He cited guidance that he had received from the USOC mail room. I pointed out that that guidance was certainly wrong and that he had better check it out with the post office. Just to make sure, I checked with the Postal Service myself and learned that mailing them first class would cost at least $1.05 each whereas they can be sent as bulk mail for about 9.5 cents each. Multiply the 95 cent difference by the expected licensing volume of 34,000 and you get something over $32,000. You may recall that I had arranged for bulk mailing a decade ago and this practice continued until Prouty suddenly and irrationally switched back to first class in 1984. As I recall, he was trying to simplify the license processing at the time when it was thoroughly screwed up, but that is no excuse for such an expensive decision. I argued strenuously against it at the time, but was ignored as usual. I estimate that the Federation has poured something over $100,000 down this rat hole during 1984-88. If they do it again, I am going to expose this mess. I am scheduled to arrive at Long Beach Airport at 6:25 PM Saturday and will get to the Edgewater shortly thereafter. Would you care to meet for dinner somewhere/sometime, or will your CST stomach have demanded satisfaction already? Do you agree with any of this?

PDheader:1989-01-04 12:10:00-08:00 b677faaeb46e85fc50abdcd2f4a0cba0 ∂04-Jan-89 1210 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Miscellany Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 12:09:54 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA08430; Wed, 4 Jan 89 12:32:41 CDT Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 12:30:42 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8901041830.AA12455@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 4 Jan 89 12:30:42 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Miscellany

Les Just to add to the confusion: I'm flying into LAX and will arrive there around 2:00, that should make it possible to rendezvous at the Edgewater for supper. If it's the motel I recall, then I remember bunches of Seafood places in the area.

PDheader:1989-01-04 13:12:00-08:00 dceda5ef1f8c7042c147d8af8d8e5fc1 ∂04-Jan-89 1312 LES re: A greater Rule Book To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I am purging my 1988 message files and just reviewed your Nov. 11 note advocating the inclusion of the sprint seeding tables in the rulebook appendices, which I support. It somehow hasn't gotten there. It probably is not too late -- would you care to supply a definitive version?

PDheader:1989-01-04 16:10:00-08:00 4cbc676d3076e69bb9e6a71f442e8998 ∂04-Jan-89 1610 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:walker@meggie new USCF upgrade rules Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 16:10:46 PST Received: from meggie.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03895; Wed, 4 Jan 89 16:07:55 PST Message-Id: <8901050007.AA03895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: 4 Jan 89 15:56:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: new USCF upgrade rules To: "les" <les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

Hi Les. I'm Art Walker, a cat 2 rider since late 1984, barely competed since late 1986. I've advised less experienced riders on the Stanford club rides since late 83. I heard a rumor that the upgrade scheme was to change, now substantiated in the NCNCA newsletter. However, the article didn't state what body changed the rules, by what margin, nor have I received the 1989 Jan USCF newsletter. Could you shed a little light on this for me? Essentially, I'm looking for some ears to chew off. I think this is a *fucked* change, and I'll be happy to tell you, and anyone else you think would be interested or obligated to show interest, why I think so. Maybe only the fine detail of the point scheme need be changed; it's possible that a thorough explanation of the proposer's reasoning would convince me. Anyway, you ARE one of the most local board members.

PDheader:1989-01-04 17:27:00-08:00 a8ef3546ddce6ce7e8b561c49570737c ∂04-Jan-89 1727 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:pardo@june.cs.washington.edu Re: Ironman results Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 17:27:18 PST Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04273; Wed, 4 Jan 89 17:24:27 PST Received: by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+) id AA00173; Wed, 4 Jan 89 17:25:49 PST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 17:25:49 PST From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Return-Path: <pardo@june.cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <8901050125.AA00173@june.cs.washington.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Ironman results Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <5886@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <6952@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <102180044@hpcvlx.HP.COM> Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Cc: Subject: re: bikes and the west In-Reply-To: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA> / 14 May 86 1339 PDT.

Hey, if there's a SUMP bike-patrol, sign me up... It's a shame we're not in Redwood City.

PDheader:1989-01-04 23:15:00-08:00 ca20bf8935038cf4960c540a2ec95198 ∂04-Jan-89 2315 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:walker@meggie USCF upgrade rule changes Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 23:14:58 PST Received: from meggie.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05074; Wed, 4 Jan 89 23:12:24 PST Message-Id: <8901050712.AA05074@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: 4 Jan 89 21:54:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: USCF upgrade rule changes To: "les" <les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

I think the point scheme is too top-heavy. More so than the previous scheme, it tends to select those with real weapons, natural strengths honed to produce WINS. These are not the guys you need in category 2. You need guys who have worked on their weaknesses, guys who can survive races not topographically ideal for them. Guys who can give generalism one more season before working on the weapon. Guys who finish races and make the truly gifted WORK for their victories. With this scheme, there are just going to be more cat 3 sprinters with all the points on three races who either a) upgrade and are never heard from again because they get dropped consistently on the mildest hills or sustained hammer sessions, don't finish so don't train-as-race so don't get strong enough to finish so quit; or, b) don't upgrade, and just suck up the points and the 1st and 2nd place prizes and inhibit the scoring of the generalists, who all of a sudden may have to score in ten or more races to upgrade. It also really shafts the guy who consistently gets fifth and sixth in cat 3 races. He can often get top tens immediately in cat 2 races. I know, because I did it. And I was working as hard as I could to improve my sprint, trying to be an all-rounder. I think most of the improvement was in setting up and getting guys to panic and do my work for me. Anyway, I'd pick the guys who upgraded with the old scheme but whose results wouldn't have qualified under the new scheme, over the guys who couldn't under the old but can under the new, as teammates, any day. I think the 12 month part is fine. I can't say about women or 4 -> 3. Maybe you would like to explain your motivations in introducing the point scheme. I really think that in the end this will tend to disenfranchise some slow-twitch guys (who could do as well or better as marathoners). I think I might have blown off racing bikes if this had been introduced when I was a 4, and that really makes me mad and sad, because I've really had what one might call a wonderful life as a bike racer. It'd be a shame if guys like me threw it all away because the upgrade rules disfavored their body type. Note that in both of these cases, the principal financial burden will not fall on the responsible party. This situation is becoming the norm. Art Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-01-05 09:57:00-08:00 3baaac1f3484ed683142b36bfa1e4121 ∂05-Jan-89 0957 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: A greater Rule Book Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 09:57:41 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA22094; Thu, 5 Jan 89 11:54:58 CDT Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 11:58:04 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8901051758.AA10924@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 5 Jan 89 11:58:04 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: A greater Rule Book

It is interesting that Harinder should mention Harley riders, many of whom are such fat slobs that they are unable to climb up on a bicycle, not that they would try. I recall an encounter with one a few years ago at the old A.I. Lab. We were having trouble with off-road vehicles tearing up the grassy areas around the Lab, causing substantial erosion. We repeatedly posted signs saying "No vehicles off pavement," but they were torn down about as fast as we put them up. One day as I was riding my bike up the hill to the Lab I came upon a cross-country Harley rider just returning to the road. I flagged him down, pointed out the sign, and politely asked him not to go off the road. He replied "Sure," then cruised down the road about 50 feet and took off cross-country again. I went after him on my bike, even though he was much faster, knowing that there were only two trails out of the area he was headed for. He looked back, saw me coming, and headed off in a direction that had just one outlet. I turned around, acting as if I was giving up, and headed directly for the place where I knew he would end up if he kept going. I stopped behind a large bush, waited, and listened. Sure enough, about four minutes later he came putzing up the grade. The moment he came by my bush, I grabbed him around the neck and dismounted him. He was quite annoyed about being forced to lay down his Harley. We had a chat in which I made it very clear that I wanted him off the property and told him that if I ever saw him there again I would arrest him. He said that he would bring the rest of his gang back and "take care of" me. I said that I was there every day and would be happy to meet them. Not surprisingly, they never showed up. Yes indeed, Harinder, those Harley riders certainly are "Real Men," even if they can't cope with a wimpy cyclist. Even I am getting frustrated with Andy. Les Earnest Between you and me I don't know how many times we mentioned including the Sprint tables, and so I am very annoyed to hear that they have not been taken care of.

PDheader:1989-01-05 10:52:00-08:00 9ca4ccd65b4edd2d22cf9027f85b53b0 ∂05-Jan-89 1052 walker@meggie re: USCF upgrade rule changes Received: from meggie (meggie.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 10:52:03 PST Date: 5 Jan 89 10:21:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

I agree that "various" sets of placings validate an upgrade in both schemes. And no one gets upgraded on just two placings. But racers who score only 5ths and 6ths in even proportion now need ten such results to upgrade. In a year, mind you. Maybe you don't think these racers are as important to the federation as the guys who W-I-N races. I do. The issue isn't really whether they deserve to be upgraded as reward for placing - it's whether they are equipped to be safe and competitive (in the sense of not being dropped early) in the higher category. I claim the guy who gets six 6ths is probably better so equipped than the guy who gets two 1sts and another top 3. He and the guys who got seven through 14 6ths get held back under the new scheme. The problem was with the sprinters who either stuck around forever and soaked up all the top placings in 3s or the sprinters who moved up after three big sprints and got wiped out completely as 2s. The problem with the former group was that they slowed the upgrading of the more complete racers without superlative sprints. This complaint wouldn't be complete without an alternative proposition. I suggest six top6 placings, period. It's an arbitrary cut-off, but doesn't disqualify any recent results. Yes, you have my permission to reprint my two recent letters to Velo-news. Les Earnest I don't know what one does about small womens' fields...I guess I'd say six top6 should go for them too.

PDheader:1989-01-05 12:47:00-08:00 479c53a9fcb05343d5392c7f234edf86 ∂05-Jan-89 1247 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu TC vs Executive Director Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 12:46:07 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA24252; Thu, 5 Jan 89 14:13:13 CDT Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 14:11:19 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8901052011.AA13542@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 5 Jan 89 14:11:19 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ... Had this been an actual message, it would have told you that I'm in the Bay area June 4-7 (Sun Micro and cheap touring). Details to follow. Bob Leibold's Legislation Agenda omitted the "Papa-Vox" President-for-life" amendment. I haven't gotten beyond his answering machine -- a 15 second message slot isn't much to explBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ... (Phil Voxland, (612) 625-8556)

PDheader:1989-01-05 13:53:00-08:00 3e0c22e176bce27c7ee2f9a9e0ce398a ∂05-Jan-89 1353 LES re: TC vs Executive Director To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 5 Jan 89 14:11:19 CST.]

Regarding records of extra-territorials: Good enough. I was thinking about that also, and am a little perplexed about what to do. It appeared (when it was discussed) that the Board generally agreed the USCF records should be limited to citizens (licensees ?) of the Federation. However Ernie ("Even if its broke, I'll be d----d if I'll propose a fix for it") failed to come up with a proposal which would clarify the rule. It would be a fit topic for the Technical C. or Legislation C. to discuss. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but as you and Boyden agreed that if that's the way the rule book says something, that's the way it should be done. Regarding the legislation bollix (sp. ?) Can we propose a time limit on posturing and then get on with the agenda? I received Ernies CYA memo (which should not, I think, have been typed and mailed from the office), and now I understand that Beth and Richard D. are following up with letters of their own. FYI - Tech Stuff I will be proposing to add Cliff Halsey and Wayne Stetina to the Technical Commission; each is interested; I've cleared their names with Richard D. Cliff has a tremendous experience in track and the preparation of championship programs (having been a chief staff person both at the Olympics and the World Champs). Wayne needs no introduction either. I believe they both will provide strong positive contributions to the TC. I recommended Al MacDonald as Chief Referee, Marilyn Wylde (sp.) and John Reed as associate referees for a forthcoming USA vs USSR track meet at Dominguez hills in October. Remaining officials, their number and names to be designated by Steve Ball in conjunction with the above and the organizer.

PDheader:1989-01-05 15:27:00-08:00 b239059b86daa7ccb54276acee2ee1d5 ∂05-Jan-89 1527 walker@meggie re: USCF upgrade rule changes Received: from meggie (meggie.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 15:26:59 PST Date: 5 Jan 89 15:10:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

Les, what were the original motivations behind the rule change proposal? Is it intended to select more strongly for sprinting ability? To protect higher categories (lower number) from inexperienced upgrades? To encourage those hangers-on to upgrade? To mollify perennial 4th placers? To prepare the riders for an era of shrinking prize lists by augmenting the incentive to get 1st instead of 3rd? I'm really curious. Snyder only upgraded racers from 2 to 1 with 3top3. He thought that category 1 racers should have demonstrated that, put in the position of a likely top6, they would gamble for the W-I-N. If they were poor sprinters, they had damned well be able and brave enough to solo. I found that hard to argue with, but on the other hand I was never aware of any guys who upgraded to 1 in norcal who I thought deserved it less than I did (and I did have 3 top3s, now sadly in the operationally distant (>12 months) past. And I know that three or four of my 4th-10ths involved hedging and conservative riding, and in that respect don't exemplify the courage that I expect from the highest category amateur racer. I was intrigued by your postins on the net about wheel covers, corruption, and the new bylaws. I have a question about the new bylaws concerning the aging of racers ov the age of 28. I am currently 33 and won't turn 34 till next summer. If I understand your posting correctly, I will start the 1988 racing year at a racing age of 35 and subsequently be a veteran. Is this true? Art ------ Jonathan Parker Evans and Sutherland Where we make the hard things easy, and make the easy things impossible decwrl!esunix!jonparke

PDheader:1989-01-05 16:27:00-08:00 b89f1f43e8d17b5e26545264513327fc ∂05-Jan-89 1627 walker@meggie re: USCF upgrade rule changes Received: from meggie (meggie.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 16:27:48 PST Date: 5 Jan 89 15:57:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-01-05 16:33:00-08:00 c06e6bbe607cd6d3add8e3f065b25c48 ∂05-Jan-89 1633 LES re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: walker@MEGGIE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent 5 Jan 89 15:57:00 PST.]

> maybe we should proscribe the use of elapsed time in stage races, > reducing them to omniums (omnia?), to reinforce the familiar. Actually, that is one of the options under the rules and some stage races ae run that way. Are you trying to make a point, or just frothing?

PDheader:1989-01-05 16:58:00-08:00 170dd4272caab8d87b2f56a4c45355c6 ∂05-Jan-89 1658 walker@meggie re: USCF upgrade rule changes Received: from meggie (meggie.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 16:58:18 PST Date: 5 Jan 89 16:37:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu> Reply-To: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie>

Just wasting time. I love stage races run on time. I have to hurt a lot in the crits but get same time, and I end up on the right side of the five minute gaps in the hilly road event. It's harder to officiate, but it serves to encourage the continued development of one's weaknesses and I think that's good. Les Enjoy the meeting. Is there a bike show down there as well?

PDheader:1989-01-06 01:24:00-08:00 91019d273b47c60dd9ff6bc9833499a7 ∂06-Jan-89 0124 LES re: USCF upgrade rule changes To: walker@MEGGIE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent 5 Jan 89 16:37:00 PST.]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, there is a bike show in Long Beach, though I won't get to see much of it. I knew your answer to the question before I asked but was pushed to test the water. Thanks for your thoughts. John D. Kennedy To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

PDheader:1989-01-06 10:04:00-08:00 1ab742e79964d6f3deb309e6a27aee00 ∂06-Jan-89 1004 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Sprinting to the rulebook Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jan 89 10:04:42 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA07991; Fri, 6 Jan 89 12:02:03 CDT Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 12:02:49 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8901061802.AA14964@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 6 Jan 89 12:02:49 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Sprinting to the rulebook

Was I supposed to send you this? Organization of Sprint Events with 16 to 24 Entrants I think you need to do some more arguing with me on the proposition of records and ages. That is, you think that there is an "erroneous" interpretation of the records regulations but I can't find the words in the rules that contradict the records and associated ages that were approved by the Technicals and the Board at our last meeting. "4D1 ... Records are recognized for each sex and age group that has a separate championship. Bylaw M ... In national championship events for classes of riders 30 and above, a rider may compete only in the event listed for his/her racing age." It seems to me that the records rules could be narrowly (and without much difficulty) be read as "this is the fastest time recorded for a person between the ages of x and y at the time of the record ride." Or they could be interpreted as "this is the fastest time for a person who was at least x years old, but not older than y (where y is less or equal to x)." [Y might be 29?] As I think about it, I rather like the narrow interpretation even though it means from time to time an older age bracket may have a faster time. I think it would be Ok to look at the records and realize that some Older dude has posted a better time than a younger one. In other words, I don't see any harm or confusion in the narrow band interpretation, its just a different way of doing things. You are right that it doesn't work very well to ebb and flow from one interpretation to another, although it appears as though this year's records as posted have resolved the Lindsay Crawford situation. The best way to resolve this is through clarifying legislation. I prefer the narrow band rule, and I suspect that that is the way it would be with the majority of the Board. It doesn't matter too much to me which way we do it. This situation is a lot different from the refusal of Ernie to recognize records set by foreign riders, because I think the rules clearly stated one thing and he went off in another direction. So .... where is the contradiction or conflict?

PDheader:1989-01-06 10:47:00-08:00 40094d95a1feb815dc87614fb7507e30 ∂06-Jan-89 1047 LES re: Sprinting to the rulebook To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Fri, 6 Jan 89 12:02:49 CST.]

Help! (With respect to reapportionment) Les What we need to do is bring hard copy to Andy on Sunday, unless that you are sure that he already has the version you want printed. A problem has come up, and I haven't thought of an expedient or acceptable way to resolve it. Namely, the Amateur Sports Act Requires that 20 percent of the USCF Board be "athletes". My latest concept to redistrict the Board had it that there would be 10 electoral regions, more or less as follows: 2 regions which would be entitled to elect 4 directors: a) Southern California and Arizona b) Northern California - 3 directors Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Idaho - 1 director 8 regions which would be entitled to elect 2 directors (formed from the rest of the US) Actually this proposal closely resembles dividing into 12 regions, but at least for election purposes something has to be done about the Pacific coastal area which has so very many riders. In any event, I need some help with how to ensure that the 20 percent requirement is adhered to. With a Board of 24 geographic directors and the men's and women's directors (total of 26) it looks like 6 directors are must be active competitors or have competed internationally ... but how can this be imposed when the elections are conducted within small areas? That is, suppose over the entire slate of candidates for an election some claim to be active athletes, but none of them win in their region. How could we force an apparently loosing candidate in one area to be elected when the electorate is different in for each section. To continue with my proposal-of-the-moment, modify it so that there be six sections each elects 4 directors of which one must be an "active athlete": a) Southern California and Arizona b) Northern California, - 3 directors c) Four Other Sections consisting of two approximately equal sized regions, each region entitled to 2 directors Note that the election would be conducted with all clubs within a section voting, so that the active athlete would come from the section as a whole. These are ideas for the moment, but you might guess that I am unhappy with how complicated they are becoming. One other possiblity is 24 directors elected geographicaly, the USOC men's and women's directors, and 4 directors elected by athletes across the country. What a deal -- a Board of 30 again! Another possiblity is 20 geographic directors 2 USOC sex athletes and 3 from the country as a whole. What do you think about this mess?

PDheader:1989-01-11 00:39:00-08:00 74a85872f63367fb326208f04bfe921c ∂11-Jan-89 0039 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu Re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jan 89 00:39:06 PST Received: from beach.cis.ufl.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07383; Wed, 11 Jan 89 00:36:08 PST Received: by beach.cis.ufl.edu (5.59ufl+/4.08) id AA14168; Wed, 11 Jan 89 03:37:04 EST Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 03:37:04 EST From: Hudson Luce <hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu> Message-Id: <8901110837.AA14168@beach.cis.ufl.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Handlebar hangup Date: 29 Jan 88 01:15:09 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

At their recent January meeting, the USCF Board of Directors made a bizarre rule interpretation on the use of certain Scott handlebars, which are now banned in massed start events. This poses an vexing dilemma for race officials, as discussed below. In response to an earlier inquiry in this forum, I had reported that the Technical Commission approved the use of the closed-end Scott bars in mass start events, while permitting open-ended versions (those having forward-pointing stubs) only in time trials. That interpretation was included in the Commission's report to the Board last July, which was accepted by the Board. The July finding had been based on examination of a prototype. In the January meeting, the Technical Commission examined a production model of the closed-end bars, reached the same conclusion, and repeated its findings to the Board. This time several directors who had never seen the bars before jumped to the erroneous conclusion that they are intrinsically dangerous and moved to ban them from mass start events. This attack, led by directors from New Jersey and Colorado, collected enough nitwits on the Board to succeed. When asked what rule they were basing their ban on, these directors eventually chose Racing Rule 1I1(e), which bans "upturned" handlebars (as in funny bikes); they asserted that the Scott handlebars are "upturned." While this is patent nonsense, the USCF Constitution clearly gives the Board the right to interpret the rules, including declarations that "white is black." As things stand, this interpretation affects only replacement handlebars, not extension bars that clamp onto ordinary handlebars. Therefore, clamp-on bars may be permitted in massed start events if the chief referee interprets the rules appropriately. (I plan to permit closed-end clamp-ons in massed start races that I run). In other words, clamp-ons may be permitted in cases were replacement bars are not, even though the latter are functionally better. This kind of erratic rule interpretation will continue as long as the USCF Board of Directors is populated with irresponsible yahoos. If you don't like it, you have only yourself to blame for failing to nominate and elect more sensible representatives. From an embarrassed Member of the USCF Board of Directors

PDheader:1989-01-11 02:14:00-08:00 63948d709de3d8e248f5b04d24fe128f ∂11-Jan-89 0214 LES re: Cyclocross National Championshisp To: hhl@BEACH.CIS.UFL.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 11 Jan 89 03:37:04 EST.]

You apparently did not read my message carefully. I will spell it out for you. The Polish rider was not eligible to enter the race. His manager got him in by lying to the race officials. There was no change in rules involved. The tone of your message suggests that you wish to rant independent of the facts of the case. If so, feel free, but please talk to someone else. For example, the Koreans. (I'll try to get a copy to the BOD of the numerology of all this before the meeting) Les Earnest ------ Les: Latest Revamping, I talked with Irv Ochowicz and Nestor Evancevich to get some of their ideas. I infer that they need some discretion to say "no", so I am cool towards mandating the tables and points entirely. This item may still need some thinking. For example: why 6 places and not (say) 5 with points of 7,5,3,2,1? ----- **** ITEM ( 24 ) **** Category Upgrading Amend Bylaw J., Section 7, Categories of Riders, Qualifying Races as follows: Part 3. UPGRADING BY PERFORMANCE. Riders may be upgraded after accumulating points in qualifying races over a period no longer than 12 months. The following upgrading points are awarded in qualifying races; 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 point(s) for placing in first through sixth place respectively. Criteria for upgrading of categories: Category 4 to 3 10 Category 4 Points Category 3 to 2 15 Category 3 Points Category 2 to 1 20 Category 2 Points Part 4. UPGRADING BY EXPERIENCE. A rider may earn the right to move be upgraded from Category 4 to Category 3 based upon racing experience and competence without any placing requirements. Part 5. Any category 1 or 2 rider who in the previous calendar year never placed in the first 10 in any event in the rider's category that was issued a race permit may be assigned to the next lower category. Part 6. A "qualifying race" within the meaning of this Bylaw is a mass start event that can be entered by any rider of a given category in which the cycling ability and performance of the entrants is similar to or better than that of all current members of a given the rider's category. (a) For upgrading from Category 4 to 3, there must be the following minimum distances and number of riders: Minimum Minimum Event Type Field Distance Track 10 20 km Criterium 20 30 km Road 30 40 km (b) For upgrading from Category 3 to 2, there must be the following minimum distances and number of Category 3 or better competitors: Minimum Minimum Event Type Category 3+ Distance Track 15 25 km Criterium 30 50 km Road 45 70 km (c) For upgrading from Category 2 to 1, there must be the following minimum distances and number of Category 2 or better competitors: Minimum Minimum Event Type Category 2+ Distance Track 20 30 km Criterium 40 70 km Road 60 100 km Part 7. Non-qualifying events for the purpose of categorizing riders are: (a) races restricted to specific age or sex groups; (b) handicap, club, and training races; (c) individual and team time trials, hill climbs and cyclocross races. If a stage race meets the standard outlined above, a rider's placing in each qualifying stage may be used for categorizing. Comment: Submitted by Phil Voxland, following the request of President Degarmo for the Technical Commission to review the current categorization process. The current Bylaws allow District Representatives a great deal of discretion in determining a rider's category. This has worked best in larger districts, however guidance appears to be needed for smaller areas. The proposal attempts to retain some discretion, while also setting minimum standards for category upgrading. Degarmo is pleading for a four year plan from the major committees. Now that is a fine idea, even more for the Federation as an organization rather than as separate entities. As for the Technical Commission I don't see that there is a lot to say other than in the area of recruiting and training officials. Could you give me some words and phrases to consider as long-range activities of the TC?

PDheader:1989-01-12 08:27:00-08:00 125711cf581ca3b23f5c130f591aa05e ∂12-Jan-89 0827 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:tikal!ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu Re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 08:27:28 PST Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01932; Thu, 12 Jan 89 08:24:30 PST Received: by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.12) id AA04782; Thu, 12 Jan 89 08:26:01 PST Return-Path: <tikal!ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu> Received: by tikal.Teltone.COM (smail2.3) id AA09495; 12 Jan 89 08:03:30 PST (Thu) Received: by ole.UUCP (5.51/4.7) id AA07709; Thu, 12 Jan 89 07:51:01 PST Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 07:51:01 PST From: ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gary Powell) Message-Id: <8901121551.AA07709@ole.UUCP> To: tikal!uw-beaver!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <6024@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Seattle Silicon Corporation, Bellevue, WA. Cc:

------ >Seems like a waste of talent, but as long as national championships >are used as selection races for international competition, there >doesn't seem to be an alternative that makes sense. >Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 Other issues for the TC to include on its agenda? Hi Les, Too bad you can't do it like we do in sailing, let everyone compete but only pick the first n "eleigble" riders for the international team. ------

PDheader:1989-01-12 10:43:00-08:00 96d1619732f04c2962eec492573aac90 ∂12-Jan-89 1043 LES re: Cyclocross National Championshisp To: ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jan 89 07:51:01 PST.]

------ You say: " Criteria for upgrading of categories: Category 4 to 3 10 Category 4 Points Category 3 to 2 15 Category 3 Points Category 2 to 1 20 Category 2 Points" I wonder why the increasing scale. Why not: Category 4 to 3 20 Category 4 Points Category 3 to 2 15 Category 3 Points Category 2 to 1 10 Category 2 Points This would tend to make more Cat. 1's, which we need in order for that to become a viable racing class. Simpler still, why not just make it 15 points for all?

PDheader:1989-01-12 12:07:00-08:00 0fa0d6d8c2aeb29496c557a00241ced6 ∂12-Jan-89 1207 hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu Received: from beach.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 12:07:21 PST Received: by beach.cis.ufl.edu (5.59ufl+/4.08) id AA07245; Thu, 12 Jan 89 15:05:30 EST Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 15:05:30 EST From: Hudson Luce <hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu> Message-Id: <8901122005.AA07245@beach.cis.ufl.edu> To: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu

PDheader:1989-01-12 15:29:00-08:00 14a91d842aed2f9c95aec640a7f499c7 ∂12-Jan-89 1529 LES re: Cyclocross National Championshisp To: hhl@BEACH.CIS.UFL.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jan 89 15:05:30 EST.]

You say: > Your chart, in the case of fewer than 24 entrants, generally gives the > advantage to lower ranked riders in the 16th finals repechages. Wrong -- they are set up to lose and will do so if they perform in accordance with the initial seedings. What you really mean is that some of the riders ranked 17th or lower will have a better chance to get through the reps under my proposal than under the UCI scheme (and some vice versa). So what? Actually, there are limits to my argumentativeness on this issue and I have reached them. I note that you fiddled the UCI format for a reason that you consider valid (and which I accept) but argue that I shouldn't try to do the same thing. While your reasoning is bogus, the slightly silly result is not very important; at least it is not worth extended debate. In fact, you could use a random permutation from 17th on and it would seldom make a difference. I accept the view that we should use UCI formats unless there are fairly good reasons for doing otherwise. From labrea!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!swamp Tue Feb 2 15:52:29 PST 1988 Article 2857 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!swamp >From: swamp@Data-IO.COM (Marshall Jones) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Handlebar hangup Message-ID: <821@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Date: 1 Feb 88 15:34:49 GMT References: <16310@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: swamp@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Marshall Jones) Distribution: usa Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA Lines: 55 In article <16310@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes: >At their recent January meeting, the USCF Board of Directors made a >bizarre rule interpretation on the use of certain Scott handlebars, which >are now banned in massed start events. This poses an vexing dilemma for >race officials, as discussed below. > [bulk of discussion deleted] Connecticut 1 621 1 Maine-New Hampshire 1 247 1 Mass-Rhode I 1 1121 1 Vermont 1 137 1 -9% 2126 New Jersey 2 859 1 New York (N) 2 577 1 New York (S) 2 1173 1 11% 2609 4735 1% Iowa 3 250 2 Minnesota 3 679 2 Missouri 3 300 2 Wisconsin 3 559 2 -24% 1788 Illinois 4 1012 2 Indiana-Kentucky 4 616 2 Michigan 4 553 2 Ohio 4 621 2 19% 2802 4590 -2% Alabama 5 136 3 Florida 5 749 3 Georgia 5 325 3 Louisiana 5 295 3 Mississippi 5 76 3 North Carolina 5 544 3 South Carolina 5 118 3 Tennessee 5 184 3 3% 2427 Maryland-Del 6 527 3 Pennsylvania 6 1009 3 Virginia-DC 6 678 3 -6% 2214 4641 -1% Arkansas 7 106 4 Kansas 7 121 4 Nebraska 7 102 4 New Mexico 7 301 4 Oklahoma 7 112 4 Texas 7 1414 4 -8% 2156 Colorado 8 1811 4 Idaho 8 219 4 Montana 8 123 4 Utah 8 324 4 Wyoming 8 117 4 11% 2594 4750 1% Southern California 9 4073 5 74% 4073 Arizona 10 697 5 -70% 697 4770 2% Northern California 11 2852 6 22% 2852 Alaska 12 93 6 Hawaii 12 238 6 Washington 12 968 6 Oregon 12 491 6 -24% 1790 4642 -1% Foreign 0 31 31 31 Ideal Region, Section 2347 4693 Grand Total 28159 >As things stand, this interpretation affects only replacement handlebars, >not extension bars that clamp onto ordinary handlebars. Therefore, >clamp-on bars may be permitted in massed start events if the chief referee >interprets the rules appropriately. (I plan to permit closed-end >clamp-ons in massed start races that I run). In other words, clamp-ons >may be permitted in cases were replacement bars are not, even though the >latter are functionally better. > > From an embarrassed Member of the USCF Board of Directors >Les Earnest, Stanford University >Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU >UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les Les, There are some previous plans which are not too bad in terms of their sectional distributions. I will probably bring them to the Board meeting. If I understand the point of your commentary correctly, the major flaw in the BOD's wisdom is not that they banned the Scott bars, but that they did not apply the rule to clamp-on bars as well. The intent of the rule is pretty clear in the book. Having ridden these bars, the problems which arise from their lack of inherent stiffness, coupled with their long moment arm, coupled with the placement of the brake levers make them, I my opinion as an official and as a racer, unacceptable. To quote rule 1I1(e) "The handlebars and stem must be fashioned in such a way as to present no danger. Their ends shall be solidly plugged to lessen the chance of injury. 'Bullhorn' or 'upturned' handlebars are permitted only in individual and team pursuit, timed individual track events, and in team and individual road time trials." The board may have chosen to interpret the rule as pertaining to "upturned" style bars, however the proper interpretation is more probably the first sentence "no danger". Danger can be defined a number of ways, however the first time a rider using the Scott bars puts the tip of his bars into another rider's hip in a Cat IV road race, he will go down. Not may, he will. And God help the fool who rides those things in a crit. In conclusion, even though your decision to permit add-on bars in mass start may be within the letter of the law, I ask that you re-consider the intent of the rule. Unless I missed something, the ruling does not sanction the use of clamp-ons, it simply does not address the subject. I for one will fight any attempt in this district to allow the use of any clamp-on or obviously dangerous bar style in any massed start event, and do not intend to allow them at any event that I am chief ref. Thanks again for your commentary and keeping the net advised of board happenings. I may not always agree with the goings on of the Fed, but I sure do like to hear what is happening at the board level. Marsh Jones From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Wed Feb 3 17:44:32 PST 1988 Article 2870 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Handlebar hangup Message-ID: <16463@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 3 Feb 88 02:20:13 GMT References: <16310@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> <821@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Sender: news@labrea.STANFORD.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Distribution: usa Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 56 In article <16310@labrea.STANFORD.EDU>, I described how the USCF Technical Commission's conclusion that closed-end Scott handlebars may be used in massed start events was accepted by the Board of Directors last July, then reversed in an incomplete way two weeks ago on the grounds that they are "upturned." (Incidentally, based on the earlier acceptance, the manufacturer has been advertising that these handebars are "approved by the USCF," which is incorrect. The USCF doesn't "approved" anything unless they are paid a substantial fee to do so. The manufacturer is being chastised.) In article <821@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> swamp@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Marshall Jones) writes: Marsh Jones says that he agrees with the USCF Board's ban on Scott handlebars in massed start events but on different grounds, namely that they lack stiffness and are therefore dangerous. He goes on to say that he will ban clamp-on bars in the races he runs and recommends that I do too. The allegation that the Scott bars are dangerous was the basis of the Board's position too, but the leaders of the campaign didn't have the guts to say that. Instead, they invented the bogus declaration that these bars are "upturned." The allegation that they are dangerous fails to take into account how the handlebars are used in practice. It _is_ true that the extended grips on the Scott handlebars have more flex than conventional bars, but a rider in a pack puts his hands in the hooks rather than on the extended grips, both because this provides better control and because there is no significant advantage in laying over the bars when you in a pack. The extended grips are used when the rider breaks away in time trial mode. "Sure," you say, "but someone _might_ be stupid enough to use the extended grips in the middle of a pack." "Sure," I say, "but you don't need exotic handlebars to do something stupid." A rider with very ordinary handlebars can choose to take his hands off them while in a group or may ride with one hand loosely on top of the bars. Banning Scott bars on the grounds that they might be misused makes as much sense as banning hooked handlebars for the same reason. Various versions of the Scott bars have been used in USCF races in Northern California since last Spring. Boone Lennon and others used them to ride away from the field on several occasions. I have never seen a problem arise from their use nor have I heard any reports of such incidents. I note that the Technical Commission, which includes Wayne Stetina among its members, has substantial collective experience with bike racing, both as participants and as race officials. The issues were carefully examined in this body and we unanimously agreed that the closed-end Scott bars should be permitted in massed start races. I expect that the Technical Commission view will prevail in the long run. In the meantime, until everyone educates themselves on this issue, we must endure a certain amount of confusion. Les Earnest, Stanford University Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les (Cheers)

PDheader:1989-01-14 13:21:00-08:00 a0afdb35d958902c52da89f721330578 ∂14-Jan-89 1321 hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Received: from beach.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jan 89 13:21:13 PST Received: by beach.cis.ufl.edu (5.59ufl+/4.08) id AA19246; Sat, 14 Jan 89 16:19:52 EST Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89 16:19:52 EST From: Hudson Luce <hhl@beach.cis.ufl.edu> Message-Id: <8901142119.AA19246@beach.cis.ufl.edu> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, hhl@BEACH.CIS.UFL.EDU Subject: re: Cyclocross National Championshisp Cc: hhl

You, sir, are a bureaucrat, plain and simple. Since the referee was at fault, the USCF was at fault. A rule change which takes effect after an event should not affect the outcome of that event, hence *ex post facto*. The rider was unfairly treated. He deserves his 1st place standing, and an apology. I will settle for never speaking to you again, and any mail or communication I receive from you in the future will be deleted...

PDheader:1989-01-18 10:14:00-08:00 92e7ecfeec62082072359f2f6c174fa3 ∂18-Jan-89 1014 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Officials Evaluation Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 10:14:44 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA23619; Wed, 18 Jan 89 12:11:11 CST Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 12:11:35 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8901181811.AA13884@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jan 89 12:11:35 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-Original-To: les@sail.stanford.edu

@#$%~&!! Oh fudge, I screwed up and sent out Kathy Volski's proposal reconfigured into 3 sections with 4 regions. What she had actually proposed was six sections with two regions. Her original follows. In what I sent to you, it wasn't self interest that put Minn. into a very large region. The problem was where to put Illinois. I don't think it matters (for me) whether the region I am in is large or small, or even whether it is large enought to be entitled to have at least one director. Illinois is so big, it seemed to overwhelm whatever other districts it was combined with. Volski Proposal (6) Reg Licensees Reg Tot Sec Tot Sec ---North East------- Connecticut 1 621 1 Maine-New Hampshire 1 247 1 Mass-Rhode I 1 1121 1 Vermont 1 137 1 -9% 2126 New Jersey 2 859 1 New York (N) 2 577 1 New York (S) 2 1173 1 11% 2609 4735 1% ---South------------ Alabama 3 136 2 Florida 3 749 2 Georgia 3 325 2 North Carolina 3 544 2 South Carolina 3 118 2 Virginia-DC 3 678 2 9% 2550 Arkansas 4 106 2 Louisiana 4 295 2 Mississippi 4 76 2 Tennessee 4 184 2 Texas 4 1414 2 Oklahoma 4 112 2 -7% 2187 4737 1% ---East Central----- Indiana-Kentucky 5 616 3 Illinois 5 1012 3 Michigan 5 553 3 Wisconsin 5 559 3 17% 2740 Maryland-Del 6 527 3 Pennsylvania 6 1009 3 Ohio-West Virginia 6 621 3 -8% 2157 4897 4% ---West Central----- Iowa 7 250 4 Kansas 7 121 4 Minnesota 7 679 4 Missouri 7 300 4 Nebraska 7 102 4 -38% 1452 Arizona 8 697 4 Colorado 8 1811 4 New Mexico 8 301 4 Utah 8 324 4 Wyoming 8 117 4 38% 3250 4702 0% Subject: Officials Evaluation Les: Here is a first draft of the next phase. Please comment as rapidly as possible! Here is some of the data analysis of the Official's ratings forms So far 447 forms have come giving ratings for 146 of the officials. I have developed some criteria for "triage" which I would like to discuss with you, basically it is as follows: Partial Criteria for Selection For Downgrading from Category 1 to 2 : 31 points, or fewer For Upgrading Seminar: 39 points, or more For UCI Upgrading: 45 points, or more In some cases, but not many, items were omitted on the rating forms, I have substituted the modal response (which in all questions was a 5) for any missing items. This is a typical substitution in social science analysis when dealing with "missing data". As it turns out, the median response is also a 5, that is sometimes used as a replacement value. (Modal = most frequently chosen, median = middle value splitting the replies into top and bottom 50 percent. The scores are computed as follows: the ratings for each of the eight items were totaled. Where more than one evaluation form was received for an official, the score is the grand total across all the forms divided by the number of forms, and rounded to the nearest integer. The proposed cut points, divide the scores into the low 15 percent the middle 50, and the high 25 percent. A score of 31 would be obtained by a person who recieved a typical mark of 4 on all the items, except a 3 on one. If you look at the pattern of responses for the separate items, you can see that anyone with a score of 4 or less on an item is definitely below a substantial number of officials. If all the items are marked 5 except for one 4, a score of 39 would be obtained. Finally if the items are approximately evenly split between 5's and 6's, a score of around 45 results. I am fairly pleased with these cut-points, however I am a little puzzled what to do about persons who for the moment only have one or two forms in the records. For purposes of downgrading, I don't think that should be done unless (1) additional evaluations can be obtained and they continue to support the original response, or (2) It is not possible to obtain any more evalutions, and this appears to be due to either an implicit "negative" evaluation or the official has not hand enough experience to be rated by others. For nomination for the 2 to 1 upgrading seminars, time is of the essence, and I'm willing to wing it on limited information, or to arrange a priority scheme where those with only 1 or 2 forms are put in a lower preference queue. A low preference candidate then could solidify an invitation by getting in more evaluations, at the risk that they might turn out to be lower than the one we have at hand. There were a few clusters of high evaluations (all 7's) that were a little questionable, but for the most part I am satisfied with the work that people have put into this project. IMPARTAL Partial .. Impartial It is now clear that I won't be able to attend the officials training seminar, alas. I must stay focussed on finding another job for now. While I have read part of the draft officials handbook, I haven't finished it and have missed Andy's deadline. Frankly, I was not impressed with what I saw -- I have multiple marks on most pages. While some of my reservations have to do with organization and style, there are also a number of factual errors. By the way, where did the weird idea originate that the chief judge is the sole determiner of order of finish? I saw this misguided notion earlier in the outlines of the officials clinic that were developed by Ernie's minions last year. It is clear that the chief referee can relegate. While I do not subscribe to Boyden's view that "The chief referee is God," I believe that Rules 1H4(a) and (e) give him the right to tell the chief judge how to do his or her job or to relegate the chief judge and assume control. Of course, this should not normally happen, but it is foolish to invent the myth that it can't happen. What I saw of the manual is strictly tutorial. We also need a reference manual that includes such things as sprint structures, assorted useful forms that can be photocopied, and rule interpretations of various kinds. Such material could be bound with the tutorial material, but might better be issued separately, because it would change more frequently. By the way, looking over that material reminded me that I don't care for some of our terminology. While we seem to have succeeded in stamping out the Clerk of Course, there still are a number of oddities. For example, the various descriptions would have us believe that there are Scorers who are different from Judges, whereas there are actually finish line officials who perform both functions at different phases of the race. The term "officials" itself is rather fuzzy. Some people confuse it with "officers," as in "Officials of XYZ Corporation said today that . . ." I think we ought to choose another term and sell it. "Commissioners" has a nice ring. The collection of them could then be called the "Race Commission." It would also be nice to have a simple, unique term for the boss or bosses (if power is shared). "Referee" would do, if it was no longer applied to underlings. Anyway, have a good time. From labrea!rutgers!princeton!udel!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!swamp Fri Feb 5 13:15:28 PST 1988 Article 2887 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!rutgers!princeton!udel!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!swamp >From: swamp@Data-IO.COM (Marshall Jones) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Handlebar hangup Message-ID: <823@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Date: 4 Feb 88 15:31:08 GMT References: <16310@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> <821@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> <16463@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: swamp@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Marshall Jones) Distribution: usa Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA Lines: 14 Keywords: foot-in-mouth After re-reading the original comments made by Les the rebuttal made by yours truly, and the answer to that from Les, I have to agree with the line of reasoning taken by him. In the Cat III ranks and above, I will agree that there should be no problems encountered by the average rider using the DH closed-end bars. I still have a fundemental problem with allowing them in Cat IV starts, but those are of questionable safety anyway :-) In short, I guess until a different descision is reached, I will go along with letting them in the starts. Insofar as the federation ruling goes, I just wish that they would decide and publish a ruling that is based, as Les states, on the real problems not on the most politically palatable answer. Marsh From labrea!Gang-of-Four!les Thu Feb 11 16:30:43 PST 1988 Article 2958 of rec.bicycles: Path: labrea!Gang-of-Four!les >From: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Information on breaking Citadel/Kryptonite Locks Message-ID: <16807@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 11 Feb 88 22:39:11 GMT References: <5317@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <5380030@hpvcla.HP.COM> Sender: news@labrea.STANFORD.EDU Reply-To: les@Gang-of-Four.UUCP (Les Earnest) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 23 Keywords: terminal embarrassment Volski Proposal (6) Reg Licensees Reg Tot Sec Tot Sec ---South West------- Southern California 9 4073 5 74% 4073 Hawaii 10 238 5 -90% 238 4311 -8% ---North West------- Northern California 11 2852 6 22% 2852 Alaska 12 93 6 Idaho 12 219 6 Montana 12 123 6 Washington 12 968 6 Oregon 12 491 6 -19% 1894 4746 1% Foreign 0 31 31 31 28159 28159 ---12-------6--- Ideal Region, Section 2347 4693 (Percentages are the difference of the size of a given section or region from the ideal size for a region or section) Note: This is Kathy's actual proposal, the one mailed out to the Board was her proposal reconfigured from six sections with two regions to three sections with four regions each. Loose quick-releases did me in awhile back in a way that was far more damaging to my ego than to my body. My bike had been reassembled by my daughter after a trip home in the trunk and I neglected to check the skewers when I headed off the next morning. My commuting route took me through Foothill College, where I came to a T-intersection at the same time that two cars approached on the other roads. I did a brief track stand to assess their intentions and, when it became clear that they were waiting for me to proceed, I decided to show them how fast a bicycle can accelerate. I stompted hard on the pedals, with startling results! The rear quick-release had been tightened enough so that it held for the mile or so I had ridden, but the greater pedal forces caused it to slide forward, locking the rear wheel, and pitching me off. Meanwhile, the front wheel, which was completely loose, disconnected and rolled ahead across the intersection. The drivers of the cars waiting for me to pass looked aghast, seemingly wondering what had cause the explosion of bicycle parts. I lay on the ground in terminal embarrassment, wondering what I had done wrong. Les Earnest, Stanford University Arpanet: Les@Sail.Stanford.EDU UUCP: . . . DECWRL!Sail.Stanford.EDU!Les

PDheader:1989-01-18 11:00:00-08:00 b3826d8f22e8207527e37d9ab7309718 ∂18-Jan-89 1100 LES Applied numerology To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 25 Oct 88 13:12:49 CDT.]

Yes, your message seems to have come by Arpanet. According to the header, the path was from atlas.socsci.umn.edu to nova.socsci.umn.edu to uc.msc.umn.edu to here. Transit time was reportly 28 minutes. I should think that we can get the rulebook galleys available by the time of the district reps meeting. Incidentally, Andy confirmed my worst fears today about how indexing is done -- he says it is manual. There is no practical way to keep such an index accurate and up to date. We'd better get a decent desktop publishing system fast. Not enough time for this year, unfortunately. I recommended to Andy that we go back to bulk mailing the rulebook. It should be possible to save over half of the substantial mailing cost that way. I also asked him to look into the cost of spiral-binding either all the rulebooks or part of them (e.g. those sent to officials). It makes them much easier to leave open to a given page.

PDheader:1989-01-18 11:04:00-08:00 b73d140f1a8280a84a09f2b012cc8070 ∂18-Jan-89 1104 LES In spite of us To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:16:14 CDT.]

I finally finished Dave's book last night. I will now try to write a review for Cyclops and will zap you a copy in case you have any comments or additions. The problem was not that I improved your proposal but that we both forgot that it had been tabled. The legislative session was unreasonably short, which led to a number of good things not being given fair treatment. I think that it is particularly unfortunate that we didn't get to all-terrain racing, even though it was clear that Patti Cashman was poised to try to trash it for some peculiar reason. There was also a lot of good stuff in the stage racing rules. Sigh. The first and current typeface used in Cyclops is "Lucida," which was designed by my good friends Chuck Bigelow and Chris Holmes and is my favorite. You may observe that Lucida has also been used in Scientific American since late 1986.

PDheader:1989-01-18 11:38:00-08:00 d5b6fa5e2a8d608bd68e473d5c21a6b4 ∂18-Jan-89 1138 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Numeroscopy Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 11:37:57 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA25669; Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:34:23 CST Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:34:45 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8901181934.AA14222@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:34:45 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Numeroscopy

For a time I was printing on machines that didn't have Lucida, so I used Computer Modern, designed by Don Knuth. It is OK, but kind of ordinary.

PDheader:1989-01-18 11:49:00-08:00 c0c445170fae884e3505fc201b634df3 ∂18-Jan-89 1149 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Further to your numerantings Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 11:49:32 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA25910; Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:45:52 CST Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:46:16 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8901181946.AA14238@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:46:16 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Further to your numerantings

ooops Abdobe, and there are way to many for the random user to choose. They aren't cheep to buy either. One final thought, about the scale running high, you should recall that we are looking at only the Cat 1 and 2 officials, who should presumeably be a cut above average.

PDheader:1989-01-18 12:57:00-08:00 a9432e004faad8c5b9a300ab4bd7c9ff ∂18-Jan-89 1257 LES News To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

The following just appeared on rec.bicycles. It is clear that someone is jumping to conclusions about USCF-NORBA-PRO negotiations. I haven't seen the terms of either deal, but I will bet that the PRO deal is unacceptable. Nevertheless, I expect that Richard will try to sell it. My fears were realized today when I received the agenda for the UCI congress. Naturally it is all in French, but includes that bleeping exposition of sprint rules. I guess you have a copy of it, or at least a portion that I asked Jaques Adnet to translate while we were having the legislation meeting in COS. >From: bhilden@druwy.ATT.COM (Bruce Hildenbrand) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: USCF -- NORBA -- PRO Message-ID: <3779@druwy.ATT.COM> Date: 17 Jan 89 20:50:53 GMT Distribution: rec Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO Lines: 19 I am wondering whether to grumble at the FIAC meeting about all this. >From the Boulder Daily Camera: The Tour of California will be postponed for 1 year, financial difficulties

PDheader:1989-01-18 13:11:00-08:00 51ea5ad19fec780ee90a2dc2bd1c6b2b ∂18-Jan-89 1311 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: News Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 13:11:07 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA12714; Thu, 3 Nov 88 17:25:47 CDT Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 17:28:10 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8811032328.AA06065@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 3 Nov 88 17:28:10 CST To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: And how are you?

Yup, life sure gets complicated when the U of M's internet gets attacked by a mystery virus, and I haven't the foggiest idea how to diddle the innards of the Sun Unix system.

PDheader:1989-01-18 13:24:00-08:00 6afb471898f8e669ba5b834a2108da11 ∂18-Jan-89 1324 LES re: News To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:11:29 CST.]

I agree. Though most directors don't seem to understand those issues, I suspect that the Board as a whole can still be induced to block Richard's fuzzy roll. You can alway count on Fraysse and a few others to vote against any accomodation with PRO and some others are easily stimulated into paranoid behavior by suitably lurid allegations. If Richard paints himself into a corner on this one, he is going to come out splotched.

PDheader:1989-01-19 12:49:00-08:00 07505664cb1c96be3ee7fd1879845ca6 ∂19-Jan-89 1249 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu In spite of you Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 12:49:30 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA28310; Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:29:56 CDT Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:29:56 CST id AA16427; Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:45:55 CST Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:48:12 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8811111729.AA07751@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:29:56 CST Message-Id: <8901192048.AA01601@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:48:12 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: A greater Rule Book

I am of the opinion that the table for the elimination rounds in Sprints for championship events (was it for 16-24 competitors?) that we have adopted should be included as a rule book appendix. I doubt that anyone (let alone the Chief Referee) is apt to be carrying the officials training manual to the championships. Thoughts? I might event prefer some form of the tables for fewer entrants, but I won't push the point for the moment. Subject: In spite of you

PDheader:1989-01-19 14:53:00-08:00 f30c97b31b9c3da5a9e2473240cf45f9 ∂19-Jan-89 1453 LES re: In spite of you To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:48:12 CST.]

" ... any and all risks associated with participation. Thanks for your remarks. I agree that I should not claim that the rule book is uniformly unambiguous. ----- >As usual you are persisting with the notion that the USCF actually >had a role in the conduct and organization of the Olympics, which >of course was not the case. The term risks in this release is meant to include, by way of example, things such as the following: the dangers of collision with fixed or moving objects ... These examples of risks are only some of the types of hazards which might arise, there are certainly others that can and do occur in cycling competition." Where did you get the impression that I thought that? I have never made a statement that even vaguely implied that -- it is a myth that you created in 1984 to explain your unfortunate actions. It grows no more convincing with repetition. Who could disagree that the release should be understandable and compact? The big problem is, is it sufficiently inclusive? >Siracusa knew that very well despite the trail of damaged egos it left >throughout the Federation, yours included. I never tangled with Siracusa, so there was no opportunaty for damage. If I had, I expect that he would have learned to avoid me, as have so many others.

PDheader:1989-01-19 15:08:00-08:00 13877f8c09fe6e92ba74004c4f915559 ∂19-Jan-89 1508 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: In spite of you Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 15:08:32 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA18471; Thu, 19 Jan 89 17:04:48 CST Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 17:07:10 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8811142242.AA04656@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 14 Nov 88 16:42:51 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: revisionism

(I just got your message but forgot that I could reply ... oh never mind my head is a little addled just now) Here is a cc of what I sent to Andy: To: Andy Bohlmann From: Phil Voxland Date: November 14, 1988 I was out of town this weekend, and during the course of the trip I must have eaten something evil, because, I was totally wasted on the flight back and have spend the last night and morning in bed. Now I feel less wiped out, so I can get back to the Rule Book galleys. Rather than FEDEX to you, I'll use this Fax. It should do just about as well. * Add Sprint rounds chart for 16-24 competitiors as an appendix * I don't know what Bylaw re-lettering and rule re- numbering have actually been authorized so some comments may be out of whack: Schedule of Fees, 5 (c) refers to Bylaw L, Section 8, probably this is N? Schedule of Fees, 7, refers to Bylaw H, appeals Bylaw F, Section 2, Part 1, where is section (g)? Bylaw G, Section 1, "Boards" should be "Board" Bylaw H, Section 1, Part 5, "assessig" Bylaw H, Section 3, Part 1 (d) "thoese" Bylaw K, Part 4 (b) "evluation" Bylaw K, Part 4 (c) "evaluatin" Bylaw N, Section 2 is entitle "Definitions", and indeed everything in Part 1 is a definition, but Part 2 is a regulation? Bylaw N, Section 3, Parts 3 & 4 are the same rule I guess something new was to have been put in there Bylaws P, Section 4, Q, Section 1 refer to Bylaw H 1A14 refers to Rule 1M, should be 1O 1C1 refers to Bylaw P 1D1 (h) has some funky symbols 1E5, looks like the $2500 was put in the wrong place 1N3 has a number 1 which shouln't be there 2H8 "permitte" 4A1 "Nation" should be "National" 5A2 "peanlty" 5A2 (a) "derivation" should be "derivative" Table 2 should include the drug "Probenicid" as a prohibited diuretic. Les is checking on this, I think. UCI Article 49, give it a different title, and omit the "This text ... communique" (e) "aerodynamic sheel" shoul "Aerodyamic sheel" should be "aerodynamic shell" kilometer time "trail" should be "trial" The word "bicycle" doesn't make sense in the following sentence: "Under no circumstances ... in events such as: sprint, points race, bicycle, tandem, pacing ..." I know that it is in the original Article 49 text, however. I would recommend deleting everything after "Once accepted by the UCI Executive Committee ... " including Article 50, which is for stayers. Add Connie Paraskevin-Young to the Board of Directors list, as women's athlete representative. Move Beth, Fred, and Dean to Central Section. Check region designations for the directors, in case some changed due to redistricting. --------------------- Now, do you have the district registration counts? I'd like to have them. --------------------- As this thing flashed by on my screen, I noticed some of my typical typos. Why is it that nothing is obvious until afterwards? Message-Id: <8901192307.AA03971@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 19 Jan 89 17:07:10 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: In spite of you

PDheader:1989-01-19 19:50:00-08:00 6e6e2dae837554f2d5a98e4f983a4bc6 ∂19-Jan-89 1950 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: hard v. soft helmets Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 19:50:11 PST Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03188; Thu, 19 Jan 89 19:47:00 PST Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.23) id AA23743; Thu, 19 Jan 89 21:48:43 CST Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 21:48:39 CST From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 21:48:39 CST Message-Id: <8901200348.AA14647@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.4-Client) id AA14647; Thu, 19 Jan 89 21:48:39 CST To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Worldwatch Institute on Bicycles Subject: Re: hard v. soft helmets Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <5028@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <6404@june.cs.washington.edu> Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle In-Reply-To: <6222@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <46821@kestrel.ARPA> <12990@steinmetz.ge.com> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

you write: >[ seperate paths => puff view ] Bravo. I have a slightly arthritic neck, and am miserable with anything as heavy as a hard-shell helmet. I have learned to tolerate a soft helmet. (I could probably learn to tolerate a hard one, but why go through the pain?) This business will at least make light-weight helmets more expensive, and may well make them disappear. Agreed, mostly, although _good_ seperate bike paths *are* far superior to mixed-traffic roadways. Has anyone ever sued hair-net manufacturers? It seems to me that they violate even the implied warranty of merchantability, in that the product is not good for anything. On the other hand, I guess everyone _knows_ they're worthless, so maybe that's OK. ;-D on ( And I'll be using one in 15 minutes ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo -- Don Varvel

PDheader:1989-01-27 03:07:00-08:00 2e8f1b6554346b026ce9c403ee75554e ∂27-Jan-89 0307 LES re: hard v. soft helmets To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 21:48:39 CST.]

I confess that I ride a bike path into Stanford nearly every day that is advantageous because it provides a shorter route than by road. Nevertheless, it exhibits several of the "cute" properties that I grumbled about in a subsequent posting, including an entry maze that has been carefully designed to rip off your rear derailleur unless you are very cautious. -Les

PDheader:1989-01-27 06:10:00-08:00 9815956536b844ddd0d57349f76859ef ∂27-Jan-89 0610 kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu Agnew Received: from csvax.caltech.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 06:10:07 PST Received: by csvax.caltech.edu (5.59/1.2) id AA03970; Fri, 27 Jan 89 06:09:02 PST Received: by kahuna (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA26785; Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:23:11 HST Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:23:11 HST From: kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu (Mike Newton) Message-Id: <8901271323.AA26785@kahuna> To: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu Subject: Agnew

Rich Degarmo is in dialogue with the National Cycling League, which I at first thought might be the ghost of leagues past. It seems like the sort of thing to take seriously. Actually, it is almost a bigger problem for PRO-Simes, and apparently Jack is nervous. Degarmo is a consummate wheeler deeler, so he is at once being firm about how our amateur athletes would get into a bind by signing on and on the other hand about how the USCF could facilitate their concept. I think (from talking to Rich) that the organization's greatest expertise is in franchising sports rather than competition management. We shall see ... Re: your chat with Marilyn on integration and disintegration of juries. Were you talking about races generally or big-time races? Couldn't the general idea be that the Chief Referee can delegate the administration of the juries, that involved officials should disqualify themselves, etc.? Even though the tech. commission isn't likely as a group to be attending any races, I still like the UCI concept. If it's there, then being an appeal jury is something good for it to do.

PDheader:1989-02-05 16:42:00-08:00 9e9714a48949036cca204f29972db8fe ∂05-Feb-89 1642 LES Board survey To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

I trust that you have received your ballot from Stan Sullen. For the record, my response is "This is bullshit \(em the size of the license has nothing to do with what the policy should be when the rider forgets his license." I do favor the idea of establishing a fee (say $5) to investigate eligibility to enter a race by people who have forgotten their license. This fee would go to the chief referee whether or not s/he is able to confirm their eligibility.

PDheader:1989-02-06 08:49:00-08:00 082ed4e71a5552ab5930d18e6a46df9d ∂06-Feb-89 0849 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Board survey Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Feb 89 08:48:52 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA03238; Mon, 6 Feb 89 10:46:18 CST Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 10:47:09 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902061647.AA15498@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 6 Feb 89 10:47:09 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Board survey

Stan's mail ballot is irritating for a number of reasons. It's a bad precedent for individual directors to get into the mail ballot business, and I certainly (if I were jerry and richard) would not want the Board to think that the results of this thing are binding. If you think of Bockstael getting influenced by Directors as a minor sample, suppose that somehow Stan's thing does get tabulated, and race officials hear about it (or think they hear about it). There you have a conflict between what has been officially announced as a policy, and some ad hoc opinionizing by directors. I have some opinions about license sizes and fees, of course, and they are not so strong as Stan seems to fantasize. However this ballot thing is completely off the wall. MORE IMPORTANTLY, it is a classic example of a loose cannon director who doesn't understand what the role of a Board member really is. Oh Lord, when we have Board members who are willing to paper the country over a question of the size of a license, is there any hope for Stan to deal with what licensing really means? For example, we are taking of Norba, and now there are all sorts of what I think are flaky ideas about licensing on the spot, or split licensing and full licensing. One side of our corporate mouth is correctly praising Andy for uncovering signed releases for use in litigation defense while the other side is saying "screw the paperwork" let's have day-of-race licensing. One hand says we've got to certify riders that they are competetent (able to ride safely, understand the rules) before they enter races, and the other says lets have more CITIZEN's races, with no licensing at all! I add to the palaver that I think these short-term licenses may be a bad financial program also. That is (and I speculate) the Federation can receive more income from riders willing to pay $32 for a license that is good for the remainder of the year than from riders who will by a cheapo on the spot ticket. Also, I think that there should be a single license for Norba, USCF, and whatever else we oversee, and the probably the fee can be reduced from $32 to $30 or less. Those are more nearly the big issues about licensing. Yes, by the way the size of the sucker can be reduced, but I have to say until we figure out what the license means relative to off-terrain races, I am not sure what needs to be on the face and back-side of it.

PDheader:1989-02-06 12:18:00-08:00 45a07233520f9ff2c1e57a3f4d77f3f9 ∂06-Feb-89 1218 LES Another Sullen story To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Mon, 6 Feb 89 10:47:09 CST.]

There was a meeting of the NCL organizers in Pasadena on Saturday and I sent a designated spy. The first thing he tried to do was sit in on a Rules Committee meeting, but he was promptly detected and politely ejected. One person who was not ejected was Stan Sullen, who has apparently joined the conspiracy. Before he got thrown out, my spy saw Stan wave a yellow USCF Rule Book in the air and proclaim "You don't need all this -- I can write you some much simpler rules." God help them.

PDheader:1989-02-13 12:43:00-08:00 d680f3b58f92e9b0dc2e37f69792b3bf ∂13-Feb-89 1243 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Muzzleanous Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 12:43:09 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA08228; Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:39:52 CST Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:38:48 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8902132038.AA00758@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:38:48 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Muzzleanous

We had the planning session with the international commissaire crowd in colorado springs this weekend. I suppose it was alright, though I continued to get zinged by Beth and Al on various topics. I'm not angry at them for it, just very weary of it all. Anyway, the other day I fielded a question from someone who (like me0 still has trouble instantly looking at a chart for junior distance of gear limits and figuring out gracefully what limits apply to boys and girls (men and women who are of the younger ages). Would it help to create a chart with single year increments, rather than age ranges. I tried it in an off moment, and reached a state of confusion. If you understand what I mean, care to give it a try?

PDheader:1989-02-13 18:03:00-08:00 5ebd5d4ada1703455ccf610bf91a4873 ∂13-Feb-89 1803 LES re: Muzzleanous To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:38:48 CST.]

It is certainly possible to make the junior gear and distance tables have one year increments, though it would also be rather redundant and not much easier to read, I think. Do people really have trouble figuring out how to read that stuff? I just got a call from Tom Nee inquiring about whether he has the right to appoint additional officials. I said "I think so" and sent him to you.

PDheader:1989-02-14 08:26:00-08:00 6c8e1d80ebe3278916bb1ef2ca72a4af ∂14-Feb-89 0826 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Muzzleanous Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 08:26:47 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA20510; Tue, 14 Feb 89 10:23:56 CST Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 01:10:18 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902140710.AA12589@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 14 Feb 89 01:10:18 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Muzzleanous

I issued an opinion at the weekend confab that remaining officials should be finalized by Andy Bohlmann, consulting with Cindy Donnelly. Apparently Tom has probably told certain additional people that they will be working the race as officials. The race permit seems to have been signed by Andy, under instructions from Jerry. That isn't entirely bad, except that it leaves lots of confusion with district reps (such as Cindy) what their role is or isn't. I think the race passes through some 6 districts, and nobody has really "inspected" the courses since the techical regulations are still under production. Some aspects of life are a mess. Thanks for the copy of the NCL stuff. I was actually a little impressed with some of their structures. I suspect that it is not really very innovative in terms of sport leagues and franchising. Certainly the documents themselves were not particularly "professional". Some of the budgets they envision are substantial and so seem like pipe dreams. (Yes) I have had a call or two about interpreting the junior limits relative to the different ages of men and women.

PDheader:1989-02-17 20:36:00-08:00 430777b17fb0a356a75bc3eff75c2fd6 ∂17-Feb-89 2036 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu January licenses, letter of recommendation Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 20:36:35 PST Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05284; Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:37:48 PST Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA26664; Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:33:58 PST Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA21233; Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:34:20 PST Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:34:20 PST From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8902180434.AA21233@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: January licenses, letter of recommendation Hey Les, First, this is a request. I'm applying to the graduate school of education at San Jose State and I was wondering if you could write a letter of recommendation for me. Though you probably do not know my academic record you have seen my writing (CUSA, NCCA Newsletter last month, Velo-News next month, +++) and coaching and perhaps public speaking ability (Nor Cal coaching clinic '87). Any good words you could say would be greatly appreciated. My resume is appended to this letter. They need two copies, one for the college and one for the department. Could you send them to me at: Roger Marquis 782 San Luis Rd. Berkeley, CA 94707 Second, I know a few people who had a hard time getting their licenses in to race the early January races. Part of the problem is deciding which club to join. Most racing clubs don't know who they can let join until their sponsors finalize their agreements, usually after the first of the year, long past when racing applications have to be in. This puts a major burden on riders who feel the need, financially and otherwise, to join the best club possible. Is it feasible to extend the period of validity to 13 or 14 months to alleviate this problem? The only problem I could imagine might be with the insurance company. If this is possible I think it would generate good faith between the riders and the federation. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Roger Marquis (marquis@qal.qal.berkeley.edu) ----------------------------------------------------------------- WORK EXPERIENCE SUGDEN & LYNCH CYCLES, Menlo Park, Mechanic; '77-78 THE WHEY INN, Manager; Wine, cheese, coffee, deli; '79-80, In charge of: stock, pricing, display, advertising, 2 employees. CALIFORNIA PEDALER, Danville, '85-86; Mechanic, Sales CO-OP DELI, Night manager; '86 UNITED STATES CYCLING FEDERATION, Colorado Springs, Co, Assistant coach; Summer '87 NOE VLY. CYCLES, Sales, service; '88-Present EDUCATION FOOTHILL COLLEGE, French, Accounting UNIVERSITE D'AMIENS, French DIABLO VLY. COLLEGE U.C. BERKELEY, Psychology, Computer Science Graduation: June '89 COACHING / SPEAKING / WRITING 1978 USCF coaching certification 1981 President Foothill College Cycling Club 1983 Monthly writing for C.U.S.A. 1985 Guest speaker, Cal State S.L.O. Promoter S.L.A.C. training series 1986 President Diablo Vly. College Cycling Club 1986/9 Coach UCB cycling team 1987/8 U.S.C.F. Junior Worlds assistant coach U.S.A. National Team Coach: Tour De Guadeloup President, newsletter editor & writer: UC Berkeley Cycling club '87-'88 Speaker & co-organizer, U.S.C.F. west coast coaching seminar Promoter, U.C.Berkeley racing weekend 1989 Writing for Velo-News, National circulation BICYCLE RACING 1979 5th, Grand Prix D'Comp'eigne, France 1982 3rd, Nor Cal road championships 1983 4th, Nor Cal cyclocross championships 10th, Ironhorse triathlon 1984 Nor Cal Prestige Road Trophy winner 3rd, Nor Cal Road Championships 1sts: Tahoe/Truckee, Placerville NORBA, Golden Co. Gant, Placerville Suntour, Pacines R.R.; 2nd: Chicago Gant, Pasadena Gant, Sacramento R.R., Marin R.R., Gorman NORBA, + 1986/7 1st, UCB Collegiate criterium 2nd, Western Collegiate Criterium championships 1st Western Collegiate Road Champion 1988 1st Mt. Tamalpias Hillclimb 1sts Friday Night track series, San Jose

PDheader:1989-02-18 13:26:00-08:00 58778c9ff7515ba9407af56afc75c5d0 ∂18-Feb-89 1326 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Feb 89 13:26:34 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA10174; Sat, 18 Feb 89 15:23:16 CST Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 15:24:23 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902182124.AA15750@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sat, 18 Feb 89 15:24:23 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited

Just had a call from Yvonne. I think the question boils down to this: Is there any prohibition now on a jr. entering a Category 4 race (for example) even when that categeroy 4 race is for a distance that is greater than would apply for that junior's age category? I'm at home and she's in the midst of a seminar for officials, if you get to this in a near-timely fashion please reply promptly. In fact, you might want to call Y. at 303-757-1892. I told her that I didn't think there was a limit any more - just one for jr. races - and not racers - but I don't have the final draft for the rule book, and it might take some prowling around

PDheader:1989-02-19 00:41:00-08:00 28631a21543c3c2d5952778aa6213d72 ∂19-Feb-89 0041 LES re: Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Sat, 18 Feb 89 15:24:23 CST.]

Yes, distance limits are now determined by the oldest riders in the race, which means that there are no limits for juniors competing in senior events. I received your message around 5:30 PM my time and called Yvonne, but of course her seminar was over by then.

PDheader:1989-02-19 08:50:00-08:00 ed7d0bc91476b1276053015f71b09d64 ∂19-Feb-89 0850 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 89 08:50:10 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA20572; Sun, 19 Feb 89 10:46:56 CST Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 10:48:04 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902191648.AA16228@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 19 Feb 89 10:48:04 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited

Right. That reminds me that the French Federation has a table of distances for races of various ages and catgegories. They propose that for lower category riders the distances be somewhat shorter. I don't know the basis, other than to speculate about skill or endurance of the entrants. I wonder if there would be some sense for us to provide the same as guidance. The Canadian Federation has gone even further, and modifies the distances according to the season, with longer races approved for July-August when more riders are fit, I suppose. And then there's the proposition of a fully-specified or broken down prize list. I once tried to make an algorithm of it, and got nowhere, because my notion of ideal distribution varied with the amount of $$$ and the size of the field. Yvonne had a copy of the new rule book. ------ I showed your ACM Flame-out to one of our Political Science profs. Charlie has collaborated on what is one of the definitive texts on survey research methods. (A little dated because it still describes punch cards) Anyway he was very complimentary, and I suspect you should feel good about that. He has had to design more questionnaires which ask for data of the categorical type such as "race" than anyone I can imagine at the U.

PDheader:1989-02-19 12:54:00-08:00 53fbd45f36993664ddc3c981168acf13 ∂19-Feb-89 1254 LES re: Jr Gear and Distance Limits Revisited To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Yes, Yvonne mentioned that she had a copy of the new rules. The thing that apparently confused her is Rule 1G1 which remains unchanged and which says: "Junior riders may compete in any races for their age or older, up to and including general (not masters) senior races, subject to limitations specified elsewhere in these rules." Of course, nearly all such limitations have now been eliminated. The only ones still in the book, I believe, are in Bylaw M (Championships). I suspect that the basis of the French and the Canadian distance regulations derives from the same basic motivation that gives rise to most regulations. This is what I call the Bureaucrat's Ethic: "Anything that can be measured should be regulated." It is not necessary to have any valid reason for such regulations; one can always be invented. With respect to prize list distribution, as you may know, the Belgians and Dutch specify the entire prize list for each class of race and it must be in cash. While that has certain advantages, I think that it is excessively restrictive. In any case, it would never get through the current USCF Board, except possibly for a restricted class of races (e.g. Cat. A). While the weird 1/n rule has eliminated the more extreme abuses represented by historic atrocities such as the Ridiculous Rug Race, it can probably be improved upon. Care should be taken to ensure that any replacement rules are easy to check, since many people in the Federation seem to have trouble with arithmetic. Your friend Charlie obviously has good taste. Is his last name Tuna perchance? I slipped a copy of the CACM article to John McCarthy here awhile back, given that I had mentioned his name therein. He took one look at the title and jumped to the conclusion that it was about computer compilation of bike race results. It is easy to be type-cast. Actually, given my interest in digital typography, I guess that I'm really type caste. Okay, okay, I'll stop.

PDheader:1989-02-19 14:59:00-08:00 5aa20f98d576edd31c155e2936209da8 ∂19-Feb-89 1459 LES re: January licenses, letter of recommendation To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:34:20 PST.]

Roger, I'm willing to write a letter, but I am puzzled by the request to send it to you. Having been a member of several graduate admissions committees, I am aware that such committees usually require that letters of recommendation be sent directly to them. Your proposal to make licenses good for 13 months might alleviate the problem, but because of human nature it the same problem is likely to happen one month later. We _have_ made one change effective this year that may improve the situation: the renewal date for clubs, beyond which they must pay a penalty, has been moved back to December 1. This should have about the same effect as your proposal. Les

PDheader:1989-02-21 09:18:00-08:00 b1bdf9bc2df5c4c3bb426495a7e40b55 ∂21-Feb-89 0918 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu letter of recommendation Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 09:18:36 PST Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08561; Tue, 21 Feb 89 09:19:31 PST Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA24145; Tue, 21 Feb 89 09:15:49 PST Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA18382; Tue, 21 Feb 89 09:16:05 PST Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 09:16:05 PST From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8902211716.AA18382@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: letter of recommendation I spoke with the department advisor at San Jose State and he told me to have the letters sent to myself and to enclose them with the application for admission to the school of education there. It's important to emphasize the teaching (coaching) talents and experience in these letters. I would like to send them in within the next couple of weeks. Thanks again Les, Roger Marquis 525-6206

PDheader:1989-02-22 09:13:00-08:00 4327e83670987fbcd378fd0706b8cb6f ∂22-Feb-89 0913 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Rage Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 09:13:10 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA08186; Wed, 22 Feb 89 11:09:45 CST Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 11:11:23 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902221711.AA01277@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 22 Feb 89 11:11:23 CST To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Rage

I received copies of the 1989 Rule Book and a furious that the Disclaimer paragraphs which had appeared in the front pages before were not included. I am perfectly aware that you thought they were unnecessary and undertook correspondence on the question. I also am aware that in all the drafts which I was permitted to see the disclaimer was included. I consider it foolish and disappointing that this material was removed without further consultation or discussion. Obviously there was plenty of room to include the disclaimer somewhere within the first cover or on the 1st or 2nd sheet. This is further evidence of why the Directors shouldn't have the primary responsibility for programs, including editorial control of publications. That disclaimer was created for reasons deemed valid by Enoch and Geddes quite some time ago, and which In my view are still appropriate. Apparently Andy and the rest of the staff are still operating on the principle that "Directors can do no wrong" and so even when they disagree they bow to the strongest blowing winds.

PDheader:1989-02-22 14:31:00-08:00 212dd612d6542d9eeb776be7c74edbfe ∂22-Feb-89 1431 LES Nonsense To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 11:11:23 CST.]

The disclaimer served no purpose other than to waste important space and the reader's time, but I had nothing to do with its removal. I tried to negotiate disposing of that piece of garbage earlier, but Enoch danced around the issue, as usual. All versions of the rulebook that I reviewed included it. If it isn't there, this is probably just another example of the incompetent editing that I was grumbling about earlier. I wonder what else is missing -- I expect that we will be discovering little "surprises" all year. BTW, I received the latest issue of Stan Sullin's rag yesterday, which features a picture of Peter O'Neil on the cover and an endorsement of NCL's break with the USCF inside. It also includes the results of Stan's poll of the Board on licensing. Inasmuch as Stan uses USCF mailing labels to distribute this thing, I believe that it is time to pull his plug. I had advised Steve Ball earlier to try to get an alternative newsletter going and he says that he is working on it.

PDheader:1989-02-22 14:46:00-08:00 460cfa5aa735084e16ec25f46e0d2317 ∂22-Feb-89 1446 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Nonsense Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 14:45:48 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13231; Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:42:12 CST Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:40:43 CST Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:40:43 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Nonsense Message-Id: <Q40343CF@odin> In-Reply-To: <114r$w@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

Be that as it may, I am still pissed and I am putting your entitlement-to-be-forgiven in my back pocket where it will be handy in case it is deserved. ------ Yes, I received Stan's thing, including the summary of his License Size issue. I am also pissed at Beth's photo copy where she writes "Yea Stan" in the margin attacking the Phil and the Technical Commision regarding license size, and then goes on to disagree with reducing the size, confesses to breaking the policy/rules in Colorado a different way. Add that to Her passionate plea that everyone should enforce the rule at the Officials seminar and I am left limp with confusion at what she really believes. Actually the only thing I can guess is that she is outraged about something that the TC does, even though she agrees with the TC's decisions. I continue to be weary.

PDheader:1989-02-25 14:16:00-08:00 01acd13f3888bbca1f1ec5eefd2c36b2 ∂25-Feb-89 1416 LES Recursive rage To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I have now received a copy of the rulebook and find that it was mailed first class. In fact, they didn't even print the bulk mailing permit number on the back cover as had been previously agreed. Thus the Federation is engaged in needlessly pissing away something over $32,000 in postage. This was not a simple oversight. You may recall that I proposed using bulk mail last Fall. Andy and Jerry subsequently agreed. Then in December I ask if the back cover was being printed with the bulk mailing permit and return address on it so that they could be mailed simply by sticking on a mailing label. Andy then told me that he had reinvestigated the bulk mailing costs and that it would not save any moneyu, so he and Jerry had cancelled that plan without discussing it with me. I pointed out that his data were almost certainly wrong. Just to be sure, I reviewed the matter with the Postal Service myself and learned that the difference in postage would be slightly over 95 cents per Rule Book. Do the artithmetic for 34,000 licensees and you see the result. I subsequently talked to both Andy and Jerry about this and received assurance that they would turn it around again. Andy was out of the office yesterday and has not been at home for two days now. Jerry is reportedly in Italy and due back Monday. I suspect that what happened is that they are embarrassed about the late production of the Rule Book and are trying to cover it up by mailing first class, just as Dave Prouty did when he started this absurd practice. I plan to hold Jerry responsible and I plan to kick him square in the butt. It is bad enough that he would blithely waste such a large sum. It is inexcusable that he should do so secretly after twice being informed of the consequences and agreeing both times that he would not do it. Shit!

PDheader:1989-02-25 14:23:00-08:00 2045a3d190976b5b37f8dedb6d136464 ∂25-Feb-89 1423 LES re: Nonsense To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:40:43 CST.]

I agree with your observations about the randomness of Beth's positions. The only thing consistent that I perceive is a desire to attract attention. It appears that she chooses her position to fit that goal.

PDheader:1989-02-25 22:59:00-08:00 3e3f55af38478ba1760fc4a5c1ac3390 ∂25-Feb-89 2259 LES More foolishness To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Having looked at the Rule Book some more, I see that the material that originally contained the disclaimer was printed on the second page. I had suggested repeatedly that that material be put on the inside front cover. I had also suggested that the silly redundant listing of the USCF address and phone number there be reduced to a single listing. In both these matters, Andy gave every indication of having his receiver switched off. I see that the third page is blank -- looks silly as hell. Also, at least one important correction that I gave him didn't get in: the maximum post entry surcharge in Fee 6c1 was changed to $6 this year, but the Rule Book says $5. Shit.

PDheader:1989-02-26 21:18:00-08:00 8045f893e70602992d20aaf5b299eaa8 ∂26-Feb-89 2118 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Recursive rage Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 21:18:03 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA27292; Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:14:25 CST Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:16:26 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8902270516.AA00967@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:16:26 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Recursive rage

Andy says they will be mailing bulk mail, but affixing a sticker, I guess you'll have to get it out of him how.

PDheader:1989-03-02 14:26:00-08:00 99a2977256cf6e8303356f54ab5f3f6f ∂02-Mar-89 1426 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu USCF, letter Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 14:26:44 PST Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06846; Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:27:22 PST Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA07883; Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:24:16 PST Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA08165; Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:23:38 PST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:23:38 PST From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8903022223.AA08165@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: USCF, letter Les, What is going to happen to the pro scene now that the USCF, USPRO and NORBA are affiliated. I'm thinking specifically of The NORBA pros like Tomac who are able to compete as USCF amateurs yet are still endorse products and accept the salaries that go along with it. This is not the case with USPRO riders who must pay an extra $50. to race those USCF races that are specifically licensed to have a cat.1/2/pro race and cannot ride state or national championships. Is this arbitrary and seemingly unfair distinction going to be addressed by the Feds this season? Have you been able to finish the letter of recommendation I requested for S.J.S.U.? I would much rather apply to Stanford of course were it not for financial considerations. I hear the teacher Ed program is great. Thanks, Roger Marquis (marquis@ucbqal.bitnet) P.S. I posted the USCF paragraph on the readnews board, i case you want to reply there.

PDheader:1989-03-02 17:01:00-08:00 8fd6211d364c94e1b659e2ec4c6b050d ∂02-Mar-89 1701 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Tidbits Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 17:01:13 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13271; Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:57:23 CST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:59:32 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8903030059.AA05312@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:59:32 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Tidbits

First I pose a question, which I think should be explicitly resolved in the Rules: At a race meet, who may tell the Chief Referee what to do? Another way to answer or ask is, for whom in the USCF organization chart to officials work --- who is their boss? I maintain it is found in the Chain from Jerry to Andy to the District Representative. Thus the DR could, since the DR is usually the appointing authority. However for National level events the appointing authority is the Technical Commission. You could say, NOBODY can tell the officials what to do, once they are appointed, but that may be overbold given the loose cannons of the world. This sort of arose during chat at the planning session for the officials upgrading seminar. I'm fuzzy, and see pitfalls no matter what you decide, but I do think it should be disambiguated. (In my head at least). Here are two missives I launched today: To: Andy Bohlmann, Lisa Voigt From: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission Chairman Date: March 2, 1989 Re: Alpenrose velodrome inspection I understand that there my be some confusion regarding the outcome of site visits to the proposed site for the 1989 Master's Track Championship. So as to be clear regarding what my opinion is, I am providing you with this fax. Due to the design of the track, it is not feasible to have large fields in the various sprint and mass start events of the 1989 Championships. Since the bid had been awarded already to hold the event at Alpenrose, the alternative which we are faced with is to reduce the number of competitors in each sprint and mass start event. Depending upon the number of entrants, heats may be necessary for the points races, with around 10 riders per heat, and the sprints should be composed of no more than 3 riders per match. Due to the large number of participants at the Senior Nationals, I have no doubt that making these modifications to the program would not be feasible. I certainly regret that these modifications are necessary, but based on the experience and assurances of the local organizers, it seem that a satisfactory championships can be conducted. Looking towards the future, I hope that more information is considered before championships are awarded. I might point out that this is also a dilemma for the international federations and their technical commissions. One can only hope that more detailed information can be solicited from event organizers in advance. To: Andy Bohlmann From: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission Chairman Date: March 2, 1989 Re: Tour of the Future, National Teams in Stage Races Cc: Richard Degarmo, Beth Estes I recently received a letter from Albert Hopper regarding the Tour of the Future. Certainly National Tours by their very nature are invitational, since the participation of Foreign teams is an important part of these events and they can only come by invitation. I am happy that the organizaers are working with our National Coaching staff on which teams should participate, since by inviting foreign teams we are able to repay invitations we receive from other countries for our riders to participate. At this moment, I have one important observation to relate to you and I ask that you forward it to the coaching staff. I call your attention to the 1989 Rule Book, Bylaw L, Section 9, Part 1. This new rule was included explicitly though common sense and fairness in competition should have made it obvious. In particular, it says: "Only one team may be entered in a stage race by a club" I would understand this to apply just as much to entries in a race envisioned by "Team USA" as to, say entries by "7-Eleven" in the Tour of Texas. Indeed, I have had to field complaints in the past that not only is it unfair competition to have more than one team entered by a club, it is also destructive to sponsorship of clubs throughout the country. If, for example, 7-11 is able from the very start to so dominate a race that Sunkyong has no hope of garnering publicity through victories at an event, then the very reason for Sunkyong to sponsor a team is undercut. I am not disguising anything here, George Taylor made these remarks to me in fact, and I absolutely agree with him. FIAC regulations are partly silent on this, except for Women's events. However, when I have queried some of the European officials on the question, I must say they have been shocked at how seemingly naive it is to imagine more than one team being entered from a single club. It simply is patently unequal competition. (It is not hard to see the analogy with other sports. Football, for one often enough penazlizes teams who even accidentally have too many players on the field). Clearly, there should only be 1 "Team USA" in the various international events in this country. I would be disappointed to even hear requests for exceptions to this elementarily simple concept. Club teams are the proper way to increase the number of USCF licensees who we might like to see participate. Naturally, it remains for the International Commissaires to make the final interpretations for events to which they are appointed. However, I hold the opinion that, on this issue, the USCF rules add a clarification to FIAC stage regulations and therefore must be respected even by the officials. (I am sending a copy of this to Beth and Richard so if they have any diverging opinions there is a chance to hear them).

PDheader:1989-03-02 21:25:00-08:00 bb92e108b848aa9b0cac81143a5bb385 ∂02-Mar-89 2125 LES Tidbits To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:59:32 CST.]

Yes, the race officials are subordinate to the district rep except for those appointed by the Technical Commission. The latter operate under the control of the Technical Chairman per Bylaw E.2.1(c) and E.1. As in any administrative relationship, the appointing authority does not necessarily get to direct the detailed actions of his appointees, but he can fire and replace them if they screw up. I am a bit surprised by your comments about the Alpenrose track. Though I haven't seen it, I would have guessed that it could handle a 4-up sprint. I recall that the Track Nationals were held there in 1967 and 1971 without drawing substantial comments on limitations of the venue. Perhaps standards have changed. I got involved in a rule interpretation issue yesterday that you should know about. Lee Maniscalco called regarding a promoter's plan to change a Senior 1-2 race to a 1-2-pro event. Inasmuch as the official race announcement had been published, I said that it couldn't be changed; I cited Bylaw L.5.3. Lee said that was what she thought, but that LeAnn had told her that the promoter merely had to pay the higher race permit fee and could then add pros. I told Lee unequivocally that LeAnn was confused and that she should not do it. Lee called LeAnn back to discuss it and was told again that it was OK to change the race composition because "That is just a Racing Rule [wrong!], which is subject to interpretation by the district representative [wrong, wrong WRONG!]." When Lee called me back and told me that, I exploded and called Andy, just catching him before the end of the day. Andy said that he would try to persuede LeAnn to do the right thing, but pointedly remarked that he had no control over the situation -- that Jerry had asked him not to interfere. There is clearly some tension between Andy and Jerry over rule enforcement issues, but leaving that aside, I am appalled that the permit and license issuing process is being administered by someone who has virtually no understanding of the rules and who doesn't even understand that she doesn't understand. Unless this problem is fixed soon, we are going to find ourselves in deep shit. If Andy is no longer supervising the process, someone else with technical expertise must be put in charge. I tried to reach Jerry by phone today to harass him but he didn't return my call.

PDheader:1989-03-03 01:11:00-08:00 7aed039ceea39fbffee5f5d375f7cb9b ∂03-Mar-89 0111 LES re: USCF, letter To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:23:38 PST.]

I responded to your posting on rec.bicycles. Regarding the letter, I regret to say that I haven't done it yet. In fact I'm having trouble getting started -- while I am familiar with your abilities on a bicycle, I actually don't have much direct knowledge about your communication skills and related things that usually go into a recommendation, such as organizational abilities or academic qualifications. I'll try to gin something up shortly nonetheless.

PDheader:1989-03-03 01:55:00-08:00 04f3d72b853222eaa7c242361f50e463 ∂03-Mar-89 0155 LES May Board meeting To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I realize that it is a bit early to ask, but do you plan to have a Technical Commission meeting on Thursday, May 4 or begin the next day? The reason that I ask is that Joan and I leave for Nepal on April Fools Day and may not get back until May 2, so I need to start thinking about Colorado airplane reservations. If the answer is "Don't know," could I saddle you with requesting tickets for me at an appropriate time?

PDheader:1989-03-03 08:10:00-08:00 3f0798f0247d650a6c8c515e50e2fb0e ∂03-Mar-89 0810 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: May Board meeting Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 08:10:49 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA22939; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:06:59 CST Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:09:11 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8903031609.AA05814@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:09:11 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: May Board meeting

If I understand the question, the answer is don't know. I wonder if the meeting wouldn't be on a Friday in any event??? Thanks for the insight into the race permit issue. I suspect that LeAnn is feeling blue and vulnerable for exactly the same reasons as Andy. Important people just can't agree whether rules should be enforced, and for the moment the 'feel goods' are in the ascendency. As you have said before, I am something of a weasler and pragmatist, but in the case at hand (changing to a Pro-Am permit), there's no ambiguity.

PDheader:1989-03-03 17:23:00-08:00 4cae28bad5d8647e237b94b3ec0f207d ∂03-Mar-89 1723 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu pro licenses Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 17:22:55 PST Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01372; Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:06:06 PST Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA28417; Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:03:12 PST Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA18929; Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:02:33 PST Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:02:33 PST From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8903040102.AA18929@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: pro licenses So all pros have to do is take out a federation license to race fed races? I stand corrected, and more respectful of the Federation. But what about National and state championships? I haven't seen any road pros, present or former, in these races. What is the policy here? Do you know anything about the con-man who is advertising the national Cycle League. Readnews could use some news on this. Personally I think it is little more than an investment scam. 10 to 1 we never see a NCL race. Have you read Prouty's book? What do you think? Sincerely, Roger Marquis (marquis@ucbqal.bitnet) P.S. Forget the letter.

PDheader:1989-03-03 17:43:00-08:00 ac64fe3f4f23661118165e44fdd36387 ∂03-Mar-89 1743 LES re: pro licenses To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:02:33 PST.]

Riders who are eligible for USCF licenses (i.e. who haven't won more than $2,500/day "recently") are eligible to participate in and win national championships. For example, Jack Simes has gone back and forth between amateur and professional status four times so far and won three masters national track championships last year. There is one restriction on eligibility for national championships: if the championship is also a selection race for the Worlds or Olympics, only riders who are eligible for those events may enter. Yes, I know about the NCL and I am reasonably sure that your assessment is correct, but I am still negotiating with them to try to "bring them in" and avoid a confrontation, so I do not wish to make any public statements yet. If they continue in "outlaw mode" there will surely be a shootout. There probably will be a few NCL races because O'Neil has succeeded in selling several franchises to organizers with substantial funding. Whether those races amount to anything is another matter. Yes, I've read Prouty's book and find most of it accurate. I also wrote a review of it that I can send you if you are interested and you give me an address. > P.S. Forget the letter. OK. Sorry I didn't get going sooner. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1989-03-04 00:39:00-08:00 24970b4c0ec040b22ae5ba1f5a42ab77 ∂04-Mar-89 0039 LES Championships and such To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I just received a copy of a letter from Andy to the Track Natz promoter that says that all officials shall be paid according to the Cat. A rates. As we discussed in the last Board meeting, the Technical Commission representative should receive only expenses, not a fee. I will bring this to Andy's attention. Seems to me that there should be form letters prepared that inform the chief referee and the Tech. Commm. Rep. of their responsibilities and the reports that they are expected to produce. For example, the chief referee should be charged with ensuring that timing data are preserved and applications are made for any apparent national records. I will be happy to collaborate on these appointment letters.

PDheader:1989-03-06 21:40:00-08:00 cc43613a153de91806148c4981139b26 ∂06-Mar-89 2140 LES NCL legal action To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I just learned from a reliable source in Southern California that NCL is filing a suit against USCF, allegedly for "restraint of trade." I suspect that their lawyers have not carefully read the Amateur Sports Act. In any case, I guess this gets me out of investing more time in trying to accomodate their needs. I have a hunch that they have finally figured out that they are in deep trouble and are looking for a scapegoat. I wish that they didn't have Stan helping them to make trouble for the Federation. Incidentally, their first selection race is this Saturday in Southern CA, so it will shortly be time for Jerry to start suspending.

PDheader:1989-03-14 19:05:00-08:00 5238b12dc950eb16c9343020f076ab3d ∂14-Mar-89 1905 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:walker@meggie rule change? Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 19:05:09 PST Received: from meggie.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01821; Tue, 14 Mar 89 19:05:20 PST Message-Id: <8903150305.AA01821@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: 14 Mar 89 18:49:00 PST From: "ARTHUR H. WALKER" <walker@meggie> Subject: rule change? To: "les" <les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu>

Les, this friend of mine who has moved to montreal for med school and wants to renew his USCF license as international was I think misled by some xx on the phone at the USCF office. Maybe you can clarify. He seems to think that he needs a release from his previous team just to renew (now, not before the first nor in addition to a previous 1989 application) as unattached. I claim the rules can't have been changed this way because it wouldn't work. I claim that his choice at this point is to renew on the old club (which may or may not pass the office) or to renew unattached for >6 months, during which time I'm not sure what restrictions there are on his membership in a foreign club. I suspect there are none, insofar as the USCF would not recognize such club by putting it on a USCF license. Or, of course, to get a release and join the USCF club of his choice - which to him is pointless, north of the border. His main interest is to get the license in hand ASAP so he would rather not get the old SoCal club into the loop. Can he proceed then to renew unattached, international, without a letter? Thanks, Art Walker

PDheader:1989-03-14 20:06:00-08:00 f34978581289fba1a8d16f38088cc3bd ∂14-Mar-89 2006 LES NCL suit To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

I got a call from Roy Wallach of California Bicyclist this evening. He had been provided a copy of the NCL lawsuit by NCL and sent me a copy via fax. You will be happy to know that we are both named specifically in the suit, but I got top billing, no doubt because of my helpful note to Peter O'Neil. The complaint mentions "Cyclops, an underground newsletter published by Les Earnest to influence a controlling number of Directors of USCF." Guess where they got that? It is time to deal harshly with him. I don't think that they can make much out of Cyclops, but it is annoying that Stan is doing his best to fuck over the Federation. I see another great waste of time coming up.

PDheader:1989-03-15 00:40:00-08:00 1c300b15803cc4e0f63a29c243f8c3b7 ∂15-Mar-89 0040 LES re: rule change? To: walker@MEGGIE.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent 14 Mar 89 18:49:00 PST.]

Indeed, there has been no change in the club membership rules this year. If your friend wishes to change clubs now and does not get a release from his old club then he must wait 6 months before he can become a racing member of another club. If he gets a release he can join the new club immediately. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-03-15 07:43:00-08:00 6ec6f231bb292add3a88924d4d6c1ec6 ∂15-Mar-89 0743 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: NCL suit Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 89 07:43:48 PST Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA10199; Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:41:29 CST Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:41:59 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8903151541.AA10466@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:41:59 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: NCL suit

There is an executive committee bash coming up this weekend in COS, have you got any advice or strategy in mind vis a vis the suit or Stan Solin? I am inclined to think he should be removed from any position of responsibility (yes I know he can't be bounced from the Board.) I am additionally pissed by his latest rag's diatribe.

PDheader:1989-03-15 12:38:00-08:00 959b3185a2a09880211332753ac82c6a ∂15-Mar-89 1238 LES re: NCL suit To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:41:59 CST.]

I was particularly pissed at Stan's attempt to make trouble for Marilyn Allen and Jerry Lace. His use of USCF labels to mail his rag should certainly be terminated. I believe that it would also be appropriate to censure him, though it would probably be better to get the Board to do that rather than the Executive Committee. It also would be fun to do a recall election on him, but it would be necessary to mount a political attack and there is currently no alternative racing rag in SoCal, so it might be hard to get the message through there.

PDheader:1989-03-15 22:47:00-08:00 48ccb29c4dbf7cc208faaa5ee183b8df ∂15-Mar-89 2247 LES Two letters To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

You probably got an ambiguous letter from Andy Hampsten awhile ago, as did I. I wrote back to him asking him to be clearer and inviting him to discuss it on the phone if that was easier. He called back a couple of weeks ago and made it clear that his concern was about Mark Hodges thrashing around in the coaching program. I told Hampsten that I though Hodges had recently been "kicked upstairs" and that he to be less directly involved in that program. I later checked this impression with Lace and learned that Hodges was still substantially involved because he had not yet hired a coaching director. It sounded as if Jerry though Hodges was dragging his feet on this issue so as to retain power. If so, the issue should be forced, I think. You might wish to poke at that issue in your forthcoming meeting. I got a letter about alleged bigotry last week from Anthony Herich, as probably did you, and I plan to send the letter below tomorrow. (Please pardon troff-nesses). .CL "1989 March 15" Anthony Herich P.O. Box 901 El Prado, NM 87529 Dear Mr. Herich: .DE .PP This is a response to your recent undated letter to members of the USCF Board of Directors. You raise two issues: .IP (1) alleged verbal expressions of racial bigotry by one or more unnamed members of the coaching staff and .IP (2) a recommendation that the USCF fund an affirmative action program to help develop minority riders. .LP .PP With respect to (1), I share your dislike of racial bigotry and believe that it is inappropriate for members of the coaching staff to use derogatory terms regarding others even if they think they are being funny. I note that the USCF Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin (Article III, Section 1). It is the responsibility of the Executive Director to review allegations of misconduct by staff members and to take any appropriate actions, so if you wish to make a specific complaint, please communicate it to Jerry Lace at USCF Headquarters. .PP With respect to (2), I agree that financial barriers probably keep some potentially able competitors out of the sport of cycling and I would support a development program that would identify and assist those who are athletically talented but financially disadvantaged. Nevertheless, I do not agree that such a program should be open only to members of minority groups, since they do not have a monopoly on poverty. Indeed, both the USCF Constitution (cited above) and Federal law (the Amateur Sports Act of 1978) appear to prohibit such racially-based discrimination. .PP Unfortunately, the Federation's programs in interscholastic and intercollegiate competition, which would be the logical place to find talented but financially disadvantaged riders, are not yet very developed. Until those programs become better developed, I do not see a sensible way to proceed. If you have any suggestions, I would be interested in seeing them. .BR "Director & Legislation Chairman" .sp 1n cc: Jerry Lace, Rich DeGarmo

PDheader:1989-03-16 12:24:00-08:00 c91cf6f3573d66781b05bdafc2a97971 ∂16-Mar-89 1224 mkc@squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU Sanctioning training rides Received: from squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 89 12:24:04 PST Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 15:24:43 est Received: by squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU (1.2/1.1nn-Program-of-Computer-Graphics) id AA22054; Thu, 16 Mar 89 15:24:43 est Message-Id: <8903162024.AA22054@squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU> From: mkc@squid.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Mitch) To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Sanctioning training rides

Hi Les. My club, the Finger Lakes Cycling Club, is trying to gain an understanding of the requirements for holding "USCF Training Rides" that are covered by the USCF liability insurance. What we want to do is hold weekly training rides (not races, there are no prizes). We will require that everyone participating be a member of FLCC, but the part that has us confused is whether FLCC members whose USCF licenses bear the name of a different club for racing purposes can be allowed to participate. On the back of the "1989 Club Permit Application", II.B.5) says Only club members of the USCF club that receives the permit may participate. For USCF riders this is the club on their license. One of the club officers called Colorado Springs and talked to "Lian" (Lianne?, Leanne?) who processes the Permit Applications. She told him that a rider can participate in training rides with *all* clubs the rider is a member of, regardless of which one is listed on his USCF license. We would like to believe this, but don't want to be told later that "she was mistaken and the federation is not responsible for her giving out incorrect information" or some such. Is the intent of II.B.5) to say that unlicensed riders can participate in USCF training rides with all clubs they belong to, but those with USCF licenses can only participate in training rides with the club listed on their license even if they are members of other clubs as well? -Mitch Collinsworth mitch@squid.tn.cornell.edu

PDheader:1989-03-16 13:53:00-08:00 68455b6ed21977d334856e65c445dfec ∂16-Mar-89 1353 LES re: Sanctioning training rides To: mkc@SQUID.TN.CORNELL.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 16 Mar 89 15:24:43 est.]

Mitch, Unfortunately, LeAnn has been supplying quite a bit of misinformation. All licensed participants in club rides (including club races) must show on their license that they are members of that club, as specified in Bylaw L, Section 10, Part 1. I will complain (again) to the management. Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-03-16 15:40:00-08:00 4303f5b65a2a48809704d3e86e580a3a ∂16-Mar-89 1540 LES More trouble To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Please lean on Jerry via the Executive Committee to ensure that all known participants in NCL events who are USCF licensees get suspended promptly. I received a message (attached) from Mitch Collingsworth that indicates that LeAnn is still handing out misinformation about regulations without bothering to check. I returned my views on the subject (also attached). The last time this happened, about a month ago, I talked to Jerry, who assured me that she was not supposed to be doing things like that and that he would take care of it, but it is clear that he has not. I invite you to take a shot at getting this straightened out before serious damage is done. If you prefer, I will go kick ass. I just got a call from Alaska Rep. Paul Roberts, who is having trouble with outlaw races. Part of it is the same issue -- the Anchorage club is putting on "club races" in which members of the Fairbanks club ride by virtue of also joining the Anchorage club (there are only 2 clubs in the state). One of those clubs also just put on a major outlaw race, the Iditabike (see VeloNews, March 10), in which many licensed cyclists rode, including a number who came up from the lower 49. Roberts is sending a list of prospective suspendees to Jerry. I hope that Jerry acts on it. If he doesn't, he will get a lot of guff from me. As a matter of fact, I believe that it would be appropriate to suspend the club for putting on that race.

PDheader:1989-03-17 16:25:00-08:00 05d6f14ad48300962323842a5befa701 ∂17-Mar-89 1625 tozer@Sun.COM Re: More war stories Received: from Sun.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 16:24:58 PST Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA19088; Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:25:24 PST Received: from babar.sun.com by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02784; Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:21:30 PST Received: by babar.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2) id AA24851; Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:22:04 PST Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:22:04 PST From: tozer@Sun.COM (Hal Tozer) Message-Id: <8903180022.AA24851@babar.sun.com> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: More war stories

Les, I've never seen the legend of Officer Rupp, nor have I ever seen or heard of Cyclops USA. I'd be happy to receive both. Yes, my mailing address is still 31107 Page Mill Rd. Los Altos Hills 94022. Thanks a lot. Hal

PDheader:1989-03-18 11:17:00-08:00 7c9bce20dee6f0868d33e01b94cc9b62 ∂18-Mar-89 1117 LES re: More war stories To: tozer@SUN.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:22:04 PST.]

Hal, OK, I just put the last 3 Cyclopses in the mail to you. They are mostly about cycling politics but you might find some of them amusing. Les P.S. In the story "Coors is safer than tea" in the August '88 issue, I originally included your tangle with the Coors drug test, but took it out of the final version. The reason that I found that incident noteworthy was that I discovered a short time afterwards that drug testing at the Coors race consisted of the "toilet test" through that year. That is, after the samples were taken, they were carefully poured into the nearest toilet, with no tests being performed. Thus, you and Phillip Anderson (who failed to show up for a "test" after the Vail race in the '78 Coors) share the honor of having been "caught" by the toilet test.

PDheader:1989-03-28 22:27:00-08:00 ece883396c95203a5e8fe13984eeadd9 ∂28-Mar-89 2227 LES Annual meeting legislation To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I sent three legislative proposals to the office yesterday for inclusion in the annual meeting, with copies to you and Rich. One of them is a bit hairy -- the one that gets rid of the geographical VPs and makes the various committee chairmen VPs. Please let me know if there is anything there that you don't like. Attached is draft troff text of some proposals that I plan to push at the Legislation Committee (a.k.a. the Executive Committee). The first one originated with Susan Bookspan last summer, but she no longer remembers giving it to me. I think it is a basically sound idea, however. ----------------------------------------

PDheader:1989-03-28 22:35:00-08:00 94ba01a8fcad57a81c4e85b2dc71c0f0 ∂28-Mar-89 2235 LES Possible suspension & appeal To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Attached is the text of part of my report on a race I ran last Sunday that is likely to result in a short suspension. I told Lee Maniscalco to send you a copy of any suspension letter that results and I request that you handle any resulting appeal on the grounds that I would be in a conflict of interest situation in appointing a jury, not to mention the fact that I will be out of the country. ----------------------------------

PDheader:1989-03-30 19:59:00-08:00 3d598eb0d4ddaf7192850d1c5ddfc735 ∂30-Mar-89 1959 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Today's topic Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Mar 89 19:59:06 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA05043; Thu, 30 Mar 89 21:58:55 CST Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 21:59:25 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8903310359.AA00600@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 30 Mar 89 21:59:25 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Today's topic

To: Andy Bohlmann, Jerry Lace From: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission Date: March 30, 1989 Re: Scholastic Races Cc: Les Earnest You called today for my opinions on whether licensed and unlicensed riders can compete in a race issued a permit by the USCF. Here are a few thoughts: The Amateur Sports Act makes it clear that any organization which conducts amateur athletic competition restricted, by way of example, to high school students is entitled to do that without interference by the USCF. The USCF rules are more clear and permissive, saying that a race permit is not necessary for (and riders will not be suspended for entering) races organized by "A school, college, or university ("school"), or an association or athletic conference of schools, provided that the race is limited to students and that the students compete as a representative of their school or a student organization recognized by their school." (1F14d) Some organizers of collegiate events have applied for permits, and simultaneously for an exemption from the requirement that "in order to compete in Federation events, riders must present a valid racing license from the Federation ... " (1F3) I have the feeling that they have made this request mainly to benefit from Federation Insurance, since in all other respects a USCF permit is not necessary. I have continued an earlier policy of granting this exemption, with the stipulation that the terms of rule 1F14d are followed, namely that the entrants compete as school representatives. Presumably, then, the entrants all are wearing jerseys with the colors and insignia of their school or student organization. I have also assumed that the races are organized in effect by the schools, or their organizations, or the collegiate organization established in our by-laws. The USCF Board has adopted bylaws and programs for Collegiate programs so the exemption and stipulations apparently complement active Federation programs. The justification for rule 1F3 is to me based in several concepts. I am going to very briefly review them, but much more could be said about any one of them. 1) Fairness. Generally speaking, licensed riders have at all age levels better experience, conditioning, and training so that an race between licensed and unlicensed riders is almost certainly unequal competition. 2) Safety. Cycling is a difficult sport, which requires time to master. Inexperienced riders are more likely to make maneuvers which jeopardize a field of riders. Although a strong novice may be able to maintain a faster pace set by more experienced athletes, the consequences of errors are more serious at a higher speeds. 3) Sport Control. A license is an agreement by an athlete to accept and abide by the rules of the sport. For purposes of discipline it is essential for the Federation to be able to suspend athletes who break the regulations. Without licensing and identification of individuals this control is impractical. 4) Sport Enhancement. Memberships in the federation are not only an important direct source of income, but also indirectly. Potential sponsors can be attracted to support the sport when the USCF can show that their investment will can be justified by the size of the sport. I look forward to the day when we can reduce license fees, but this can't be achieved by allowing many riders to compete in USCF events either without a USCF license or at a low cost. You were wondering whether I would approve a rule exemption for a high school event conducted by a promoter. "Exceptions to these rules may be made only with prior approval of the Technical Chairman for special circumstances in a particular race meet. ... (1B1). In the situation you described to me, I don't see anything that constitutes "special circumstance in a particular race meet". The event seems like a very ordinary race, in fact. Further, I don't recall any decisions of the Board that justify saying that the USCF has already taken up the question of this interpretation. Even in the case of Collegiate races, I am sure that no one has proposed that riders who are unaffiliated with either a college or university should be allowed to compete. From this distance, it looks as though the organizer is attempting to set up a licensing program independent from the USCF and an existing school or college organization. This bothers me, especially regarding questions of liability and responsibility. When athletes and events have the blessing and control of schools, then I believe there will be better supervision and competition. These are my preliminary thoughts to help you and Jerry discuss this question. I am providing a copy to Richard Degarmo and Les Earnest so that they can also react. Unless more convincing arguments are given, I would not approve a rule exception. The promoter would do well to ensure that licensed and unlicensed riders have separate events.

PDheader:1989-03-30 20:46:00-08:00 20b38ab6e3b5f4327e5f2d7ffe20a2bf ∂30-Mar-89 2046 LES re: Today's topic To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 30 Mar 89 21:59:25 CST.]

Your reasoning is reasonable. An alternative way to resolve the issue that I mentioned to Andy would be for the promoter to attach his program to some part of the school system and restrict participation to students from those schools. I believe that that would fit within the existing rules.

PDheader:1989-03-30 22:33:00-08:00 3a504962a5abc2f64070f0a914485571 ∂30-Mar-89 2233 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Today's topic Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Mar 89 22:33:11 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA06777; Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:33:05 CST Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:33:33 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8903310633.AA00699@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:33:33 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Today's topic

That's correct, but I doubt any school system would move that quickly, if at all on such an event. I'm in New York for the weekend.

PDheader:1989-04-25 18:38:00-07:00 ac8b0733e1a6fb2b7a5202d555330c55 ∂25-Apr-89 1838 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Clothes Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Apr 89 18:38:24 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA25626; Tue, 25 Apr 89 20:38:15 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 20:38:02 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8904260138.AA05384@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 89 20:38:02 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Clothes

To: Andy Bohlmann From: Phil Voxland Date: April 25, 1989 cc: Les Earnest Re: National Championship Jersies Had a call from a local national time trial champion (age graded) who had been to an race where after the event, the officials said the he should not have ridden with his championship jersey in a road race (or maybe crit). Although I think that's the way it should be, it has been the decision of the Board, that tt, road, and crit champions may all wear their championship uniform in any road (road, crit, and time trial) event. I wonder if (1) we shouldn't put in legislation to make this crystal clear -- it isn't -- and (2) in the interim, you might put a note in Cycling USA. I turned down the rider's request for a "letter" stating what the official interpretation is on this question, since I don't like the idea of people running around the country with various letters of interpretation. Thoughts?

PDheader:1989-05-09 22:21:00-07:00 48fcd9e239d6be339c04d3eb6a839002 ∂09-May-89 2221 LES re: Clothes To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 25 Apr 89 20:38:02 CDT.]

I agree with your interpretation of the championship jersey rule and with the idea that Cycling USA is the best medium for dissemination this information, but it seems to me that you ought to put the interpretation into words and that a good way to do that would be to write a letter back to the guy who asked for the interpretation with a copy to Andy B. for publication. I will add that to my legislation disambiguation hit list.

PDheader:1989-05-14 19:26:00-07:00 ff80965fd09302ea930fd5181c23cd68 ∂14-May-89 1926 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Mingesz appeal Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 May 89 19:26:27 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA19930; Sun, 14 May 89 21:26:12 CDT Date: Sun, 14 May 89 21:25:59 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8905150225.AA11019@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 14 May 89 21:25:59 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Mingesz appeal

I take it there is some reason why you have fingered the big ME in the case of Mingesz vs USCF. I would think it more likely that ANDY or JERRY be the respondents, as they are the ones who made the final administrative decisions. I would have to say that I agreed with their decision, based on the information that I received. As you know, I do like to dodge bullets.

PDheader:1989-05-15 02:06:00-07:00 4c34f4db51e4535d2a2e1c43257523b7 ∂15-May-89 0206 LES re: Mingesz appeal To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Sun, 14 May 89 21:25:59 CDT.]

The reason that I fingered you is that selection of officials for upgrading (as well as for race assignments) is a Technical Commission responsibility. Haven't we had this conversation before?

PDheader:1989-05-18 19:50:00-07:00 73253fdbb6c88757320ccd736e8a60af ∂18-May-89 1950 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 May 89 19:50:53 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA03141; Thu, 18 May 89 21:50:31 CDT Date: Thu, 18 May 89 21:50:19 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8905190250.AA14593@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 18 May 89 21:50:19 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu

Solin TO: Richard Degarmo, USCF President Dale Hughes, Secretary Jerry Lace, Executive Director FROM: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission DATE: May 18, 1989 RE: Executive Committee I have received the packet of materials prepared for the meetings which were scheduled for early May. I call your attention to Richard's report in which he proposes to have Stan Solin and Susan Bookspan attend the next Executive Committee meeting. Richard is certainly free to invite anyone or any directors to attend meetings. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that neither Richard nor Susan may act as voting alternates or members of the Executive Committee. The composition of the Executive Committee is given in Bylaw D Standing Committees, Section 1. The Committee Includes (among others) the "First Vice President" and the "Development Committee Chairman." As we know and regret, Al Toefield, who filled each of these position, has died and these positions are now both vacant. In Section E "Special Committees" it is indicated that the Development Committee is presided over by a chairman elected by and from among the Board of Directors. Likewise, in the Constitution, Article V, Section 8 says that there are to be three Vice-Presidents elected by and from among the Board of Directors, that they are among the officers of the USCF, and that "A vacancy in any office ... may be filled for the unexpired term by the Board of Directors at any meeting." There is no mechanism in the Constitution or Bylaws for Vice-Presidents to become presidents, or the 2nd or 3rd Vice Presidents to become 1st vice presidents in the event of a vacancy. The vacancies exist until they are filled. In the absence of the President, the vice president(s) in their order shall in general have the powers and perform the duties of the President, however none of them take on the actual title of President, or higher numbered vice presidents. In Section 9, Part 2, Article V, "The Board may designate one or more Directors as alternate members of any standing committee ... ." However, the Board has not designated in the Bylaws, or named in any resolution any alternates to the Executive Committee. Stan Solin was designated as Development Committee Vice-Chairman. The term "vice-chairman" is a title for which there is no meaning provided for in the bylaws and the Board resolution did not sitpulate that the "vice-chairman" would be an "alternate" to the Executive Committee. In view of this, it is not possible for any other directors, regardless of their title or positions, to vote as alternates or members of any future Executive Committee meeting until the Board fills the existing vacancies or designates alternates to the Executive Committee. ! Page 2 May 18, 1989 In the case of Stan Solin there is further problem. After reviewing actions that Stan Solin had taken, the Executive Committee voted that he should be removed from his duties with the Development Committee. I remember this discussion very clearly and have verified it with Mike Fraysse and Beth Estes. The Executive Committee didn't pussy foot around (by asking for Richard or Jerry to talk to Stan or reach some accommodation), it made a firm and final decision. Stan at most should be treated as someone with no duties and an empty "title". Thus, Stan simply doesn't have a standing to attend the Executive Committee as a the elected chair of the Development Committee. Due to the Executive Committee decision, Stan's recourse is to await the next meeting of the Board for it's approval of chairman and members of committees. Until then, Development Committee affairs should be dealt with by another committee member, or the area sub-chairs. I would recommend that we save the expense and antagonism of bringing Stan to the Executive Committee and entrust the development issues to Dale Hughes. The minutes of the Executive Committee are defective in how they report this decision, and I will propose at the next meeting that they be corrected.

PDheader:1989-05-19 19:11:00-07:00 e2684d4b1ddcbc6c31f48fb2805f0229 ∂19-May-89 1911 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Writing on the fly Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 89 19:08:12 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA16226; Fri, 19 May 89 21:07:48 CDT Date: Fri, 19 May 89 21:07:39 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8905200207.AA15284@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 19 May 89 21:07:39 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Writing on the fly

I have received you multipage letter to Richard and Jerry, and am very disturbed that I seem to agree with most all of it. As nearly as I can tell nobody is spending much time on the topic of how should NORBA be integrated. Maybe the only way to catalyze the process is for you and me to conspire via legislation to force the issue. Time works against us -- they continue to sell NORBA licenses (as if NORBA were "really an entity" which are presumably valid for a year from the date of their being sold. So it is difficult to effect a single license. I am proposing: Converge on a full-year license, valid for USCF and NORBA (and BMX, for that matter) events. At an annual fee of $30. (Thats down 2 for USCF and up 5 for NORBA types). Estimate the relative risk of claims from insurance, and if on road and off raod are approximately equal, then adopt the $1 per day uniformly. (Now NORBA rates are $2/head per day, I think). Also, the permit fee should be uniform for on and off road events. I don't have a clue what off road charges are now, but there should be no difference between the two modalities, unless we can figure out why there should be a difference. The same goes for entry fees. All this has to do with encouraging organizers to promote events of one type or another on the merits and not the finances of the question. I don't know of anyone who is brooding about this, except me. We worked some on regulations for off road events, and I think we should press for their inclusion in the racing rules. There needs to be thought about spinning off a separate corporation, but I don't think at this rate we'll be there by the time legislation season rolls around, and this situation should not be allowed to drift. ----- I also have been reading rec.bicycles and see you popping in there. I'm stunned about how it can go on and on about piddly things (chain lube, how to turn a corner, etc.) -----

PDheader:1989-05-20 14:20:00-07:00 567e31baf4949336013b3380aa69c2e1 ∂20-May-89 1420 LES re: Writing on the fly To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Fri, 19 May 89 21:07:39 CDT.]

I'm glad that you generally agree with my long winded memo. I would be happy to conspire on NORBA legislation. >I am proposing: Converge on a full-year license, valid for USCF and >NORBA (and BMX, for that matter) events. At an annual fee of $30. >(Thats down 2 for USCF and up 5 for NORBA types). Estimate the >relative risk of claims from insurance, and if on road and off raod >are approximately equal, then adopt the $1 per day uniformly. (Now >NORBA rates are $2/head per day, I think). Sounds plausible. An alternative that I would like even better would be to derive a licensing fee that would not require a separate daily fee, which involves a substantial administrative burden to verify and collect. Perhaps leaving the licensing fee at $32 would suffice. Whatever we propose, it will be necessary to do some negotiating in advance. As you know, legislation that provokes a floor fight often loses. Any proposed licensing/insurance fees should be reviewed by the Budget Committee to determine the overall financial implications and it will be necessary to give the NORBA Board an opportunity to comment on the licensing change even though they are an illegally constituted body (not having been approved by the USCF Board). >We worked some on regulations for off road events, and I think we >should press for their inclusion in the racing rules. Reasonable, but again the NORBA Board should be given a shot at review and comment. If we do this, then we are actually integrating NORBA into the USCF. Not a bad idea, but it is likely to be resisted by Richard and Jerry. It appears that they think that NORBA can be kept separate and under their personal control. We have to ensure that this doesn't happen. >There needs to be thought about spinning off a separate corporation, but >I don't think at this rate we'll be there by the time legislation season >rolls around, and this situation should not be allowed to drift. It seems to me that this idea is incompatible with integrating NORBA regulations into the USCF Rule Book. If they are to become a separate nonprofit corporation, then there has to be a procedure for selecting or electing their Board of Directors and their administrative structure should be kept separate. Also, I am not sure how one goes about setting up a nonprofit that is "owned" by another, given that there is no stock. >I also have been reading rec.bicycles and see you popping in there. >I'm stunned about how it can go on and on about piddly things (chain >lube, how to turn a corner, etc.) Yes, the volume of postings has increased enormously in the last year. For most of them, I just look at the title or author and hit the "n" key. I believe that it is about time to spin off rec.bicycles.racing as a separate entity.

PDheader:1989-05-22 20:54:00-07:00 86a9c66f0edfe3d55254f789709b06c3 ∂22-May-89 2054 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Logos and errors Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 May 89 20:54:14 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA11452; Mon, 22 May 89 22:53:52 CDT Date: Mon, 22 May 89 22:53:40 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8905230353.AA01810@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 22 May 89 22:53:40 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Logos and errors

To: Richard Degarmo, President Jerry Lace, Executive Director From: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission Date: May 22, 1989 I eventually reread my fax to you of several days ago, and discovered a typo in the first paragraph. It should, of course, have said that neither "Stan" nor Susan are eligible to vote in an Executive Committee meeting (rather than "Richard" and Susan). Hope you figured that out already. ------------- Les had sent me a copy of his several page memorandum which brought up an old regulation about the use of the USCF logo by race organizers in their race announcements. I have to say that I haven't paid much attention to that lately; nonetheless it's there and it makes sense. I recall from when I was district representative how we were reminded that the USOC careful controlled the use of the Olympic logos and symbols. Even when there were organized races which were an early stepping stone to the final Olympic trials, we were not allowed to use the USOC emblem. This makes sense for several reasons to me. The first is that the logo implies sponsorship as well as approval. Since the USOC did not have any real control or involvement with local events, I think they wanted to avoid any appearance of responsibility. Secondly, unrestrained permission to use a logo eventually dilutes the value of the logo for marketing and identity of events. There are some races which we do directly control, such as National and District Championships, and final Olympic and Pan American Trials. For races of that caliber, the USCF logo should be used. I don't think it makes marketing sense to also allow the logo to be used for local (Category D) race advertisement. As it happens, I was previously asked about Stan Solin's use of the USCF Logo on his Racing News publication. More recently I've heard (but not seen) that the USCF logo is appearing on Stan's "Scholastic License". A recent issue of his racing news had many imprints of the USCF logo on the inside as well as on the title page. I couldn't help but think it looked like Stan was flaunting the trademarks of the federation. I don't know what correspondence, if any, either of you have had with Stan regarding the Racing News and Stan's aggravating activities, however I think the USCF regulations about use of the Logo have to be enforced. I have to agree with Les's position (I said this at the Executive Committee by the way) that if Stan wants to use the USCF mailing list we are obligated to review the materials proposed to be distributed. When such a review takes place, it must make sure that only permitted uses of the USCF logos are included in the publication.

PDheader:1989-05-22 21:53:00-07:00 525f47681c7b1590c144304f17ffc8a3 ∂22-May-89 2153 LES re: Logos and errors To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 22 May 89 22:53:40 CDT.]

Regarding the USCF logo, I noticed this weekend that it has been prominently painted on some team vans, making them look like official USCF vehicles. If they ever get into a serious traffic accident, you can bet the Federation will get sued.

PDheader:1989-05-23 16:41:00-07:00 994082481e17e984a1fe183ca6932d3c ∂23-May-89 1641 LES Parent's signature To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Lee Maniscalco asked me about Bylaw J, Section 5, Part 2, which says "No license shall be valid unless signed by the applicant and, if the applicant is under the age of 18 years or a minor, by the parent or guardian of the applicant." She remarked that she has never seen a license signed by a parent; neither have I. In fact, there is no place on the license for them to sign. As I recall, you wrote that stuff. It is not clear to me why the parent's signature is needed on the license, though I imagine it could be useful for checking the quality of forgeries on race entry forms. In any case, no one is doing it. As you know, I opposed having unenforced rules in the book because they provide an excuse for ignoring other rules. I invite you to develop a program for enforcing that provision. Failing that, I will propose removing it from the Rule Book. In any case, it seems to me that the phrase "or a minor" in the cited rule adds nothing but confusion and should be deleted. What say you?

PDheader:1989-05-24 09:29:00-07:00 8b07669547689e5e8c0a5d5c91e5ca81 ∂24-May-89 0929 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Parent's signature Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 89 09:29:43 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA01607; Wed, 24 May 89 11:29:21 CDT Date: Wed, 24 May 89 11:29:44 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8905241629.AA01740@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 24 May 89 11:29:44 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Parent's signature

I think there could be a change, but it would be that a parent or guardian's signature should be required on the license application, I dont recall whether we stipulate it for the race entry forms, but again it should be there. (Am I bonkers to think that even if an incident arises and there is proof that the parent's signature is bogus, that it weakens the position of the plaintiff that there was a fradulent entry?) The signature is required by current procedures on the application. Of course, I might be delighted if we added a parent's signature line to the license. That would be a further justification for a large format license, which as we know is the supreme goal of the Technical Commission.

PDheader:1989-05-24 14:16:00-07:00 53aed474d54cb3d3208e9b7223ea70ef ∂24-May-89 1416 LES re: Parent's signature To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 24 May 89 11:29:44 CDT.]

Parents must already sign the license application and each race entry form. From what little I know of law, I believe that a bogus signature is almost as good as the real thing if the other parties had no reason to believe that it was bogus. I will put a clean-up item on the agenda to remove the "required" parents signature on the license but specifying that licenses may not be smaller than an IBM card. :-)

PDheader:1989-06-01 17:36:00-07:00 12ebe0e4b107eae997f8a57dbd390672 ∂01-Jun-89 1736 LES Miscellany To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

I assume that you are getting back from your Southern boondoggle about now. 1. How did Richard respond to your memo pointing out that substitutions are not permitted in the Executive Committee? If he needs convincing, I will pitch in. 2. I have just received an ambiguous note from Jerry Lace in response to my memo about various disciplinary issues. He says: "Your memorandum brings up a number of items which must be discussed by our Executive Committee and eventually the Board. I will see to it that several of these issues are on the agenda for the Executive Committee." It is my belief that nearly all of the issues I raised need no higher review; just execution. The rules are clear. I plan to lean on him. 3. Having finally gotten around to reading the IOC Medical Commission's medical ethics policy statement in the 11/88 issue of _Le Monde Cycliste_, it occurs to me that it or something like it might be included in the back of our Rule Book. What do you think? 4. The modifications to medical control that were adopted by IOC and UCI last year, as well as any more that show up this year, should be accomodated in our regulations. Would you like to take the lead in doing the update? 5. It has just come to my attention that USCF directors are given a price break (relative to others) on buying mailing labels that they use for non-USCF purposes. I believe that this violates New York not-for-profit law and should be stopped, though I haven't formally protested yet. 6. What do you know about the rumor that DeGarmo is seriously ill with cancer? When I first heard that, I figured that it was a bungled spin- off of the Al Toefield story, but the source insisted that it was true.

PDheader:1989-06-01 17:42:00-07:00 fd6ae80c61b7a41399eca979a15ee5a7 ∂01-Jun-89 1742 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.bicycle.racing now! Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 89 17:42:41 PDT Received: from Polya.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02240; Thu, 1 Jun 89 17:42:54 PDT Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA26195; Thu, 1 Jun 89 17:42:49 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 17:42:49 -0700 From: Andy Tucker <tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU> Message-Id: <8906020042.AA26195@polya.Stanford.EDU> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: rec.bicycle.racing now! Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <9653@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Stanford University Cc:

In article <9653@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >There appears to be substantial interest in various kinds of bicycle >racing, so I propose that a new newsgroup called rec.bicycle.racing be >formed (note that the plural form, "bicycles," would look a bit odd). Sounds reasonable, but I suggest that the name be rec.bicycles.racing. The plural form may look a bit odd, but it conforms to the traditional hierarchical USENET naming scheme. Newsgroups for specialized topics (bike racing) should be placed directly "below" newsgroups for more general topics (bicycling) in the name space. Another possibility would be rec.bicycles.sport, which would follow the example of rec.autos.sport (a newsgroup for auto racing). Andy

PDheader:1989-06-01 17:58:00-07:00 3a2e3dfaa0c7d299ef8bec3ea5b7f33b ∂01-Jun-89 1758 LES re: rec.bicycle.racing now! To: tucker@Polya.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 1 Jun 89 17:42:49 -0700.]

Thanks for your suggestions. However, I am unconvinced. On the face of it, rec.bicycles.sport means the same thing as rec.bicycles in that that latter is almost completely devoted the sport, bicycle commuting being the only exception. I also believe that rec.bicycles.racing would be a very unnatural name that would be mistyped a lot. The basic problem is that the original newsgroup was misnamed -- it should have been rec.bicycle. It would be a good idea to rename that group, but the forces of conservatism would undoubtedly argue against that. I think that we should not perpetuate the mistake. Eventually, I believe that more spinoffs will be in order; perhaps rec.bicycle.physiology and rec.bicycle.equipment or some such. Les

PDheader:1989-06-01 19:39:00-07:00 81b5e5ed0af06a984710ad4a1734b21f ∂01-Jun-89 1939 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Miscellany Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 89 19:39:42 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA16176; Thu, 1 Jun 89 21:39:15 CDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 21:39:52 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906020239.AA01909@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 89 21:39:52 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Miscellany

Replies: 1. Richard and Jerry acknowledged (apparently after checking with Bart) that I was right about no substitutions. The characterized my analysis as pointing to a "technicality". Phrases such as that are recognized by nit-pickers such as ourselves as a defensive reaction when you have been caught at not having thought much about a big issue. So they are going ahead with "inviting" Stan and Susan to the meeting, whenever it is held, as non-voting representatives. They seem to believe that whereas Stan was approved by the BOD as "vice-chairman" that he can't be dislodged from active duty. There is a little to that argument, but I wouldn't say it means he is obliged to be invited to meetings to which he is not otherwise entitled to attend. 2. Jerry doesn't like to enforce the rules, and you know that. I have to say my enthusiasm ebbs and flows on some confrontations. I think the TC chairman should be harder nosed than I am, and given that Jerry and Richard are inclined to follow paths of least noise and resistance, I am not very effective in pushing the rigorous side of the rules. That is why I won't be a candidate for TC Chair this next go around. I do not think my "pragmatic" approach plus the mindset of the the President and Executive Director are giving Andy, the reps, and officials the kind of suppport that is needed. I'm not precluding other positions, but really I would be very content to be (1) reelected to the BOD and (2) reelected to the FIAC -- for which Jerry has sent in my nomination at last. 3. I should reread the policy statement on med ethics. I can't say offhand. The officials who have been dealing with medical control here in the US are broiling (rightly) over the random - scarecely random - testing process. Seems as though there is no secrecy on which of the days of the various races it would be conducted. Rumors have it that word gets out from those whose lips should be tighter. 4. I have the UCI medical texts scanned, would you like me to FTP them to you? I have the feeling that we should mandate daily testing, and even wrestle with how often steroid testing should occur. (Now I think the UCI implies that it is done just as often as any of the other tests). Have you a copy of Jerry's "USCF" Medical protocol ? 5. There was a price break for campaign labels, they were free. I don't know of anyother discount. 6. Richard is undergoing chemotherapy for some liver situation. I can't say that it is a question of cancer. He talked about it openly in Mexico, and it clearly is a drain on his composure. He states that as groups at risk go, he has probabilities much in his favor. Except for the grand ego trip that being President offers, I think it doesn't have much to commend to Richard. He always seems so strung out and anxious, I would think that alone would be what's tearing away at him. Sometimes I do wonder whether he's signaling something when he says things like "Well, if the Board doesn't agree with xxxx, they can pick another President." Anyone who characterizes Richard as looking sickly is exaggerating, he is thinner than long ago, and shows strain or concern at times, but I don't think there's any more to that story than what I've said.

PDheader:1989-06-02 00:43:00-07:00 42f6ec47787a08795249da9fc0e990d7 ∂02-Jun-89 0043 LES re: Miscellany To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU Rereplies:

2. Recognizing Richard's and Jerry's response to noise, I plan to make however much is necessary to get the job done. 3. Yes, I too got an earful about drug testing and "coincidences" from Tom Nee when he called part way through the Trump Tour. 4. Is the UCI medical stuff that you have the current version of the manual or the modifications given in the 11/88 edition of _Le Monde Cycliste_? If the former, then I would be interesting in an FTP. With respect to races on the international calendar, we clearly should follow UCI guidance, which seems to require daily testing for certain types of stage races. I believe that steroid testing need not be done as often as other tests, however. (Mark Hodges' claim in the Fall legislative session that some steroids can clear in 48 hours, which he used to blow away one of my proposals, turns out to be bullshit according to the best medical advice I can find.) Yes, I just saw Jerry's "USCF" Medical protocol in the minutes when I read them. I didn't notice them during the Board meeting, but he clearly no business putting out stuff like that without getting it reviewed in advance by the TC and I think that he should be dinged for doing it. 5. The mailing labels for candidates serve a Federation purpose, so I have no problem with that. In fact, I introduced that resolution last year. (I would try to blush at this point, but my tan doesn't permit it.) Trouble is, labels are reportedly being sold to directors, but not to others, for commercial purposes at half price. This includes those that Stan Sullen uses to distribute his rag. 6. My limited medical knowledge indicates that someone receiving chemotherapy for a liver condition is likely being treated for cancer; I will try to get a more informed opinion though. The report that came to me was based on an overheard conversation between coaches in Colorado Springs. If it is as reported, I do not like the sound of it. I recall a remark by Richard during our telephone conversation two weeks ago to the effect that he might not run again for President.

PDheader:1989-06-06 08:46:00-07:00 6cd6e8c15b07741a8d5c129af3060ef1 ∂06-Jun-89 0846 jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Internet.flame Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 89 08:42:28 PDT Received: from hplms1.HPL.HP.COM (hplms1.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Tue, 6 Jun 89 08:42:13 pdt Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Tue, 6 Jun 89 08:41:55 pdt Date: 6 Jun 89 08:38 -0800 Subject: Internet.flame Message-Id: <26088997.1099836.243.4@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 3 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 6 Jun 89 8:41:17-PDT (Tue)

I appreciate your comments on Roger M. vast knowledge on all subjects that he supports by references and data. Proof by assertion is such an appropriate term that it made me laugh aloud. I am not sure that Roger is able to recognize facetious comments. He probably thinks his sophomoric style is appropriate for one with such broad worldly experience (in all subjects). Too bad you haven't had the opportunity to race in France with skilled amateur racers as he has, otherwise you wouldn't make jest of his pronouncements. Among his peers in bicycle racing his condescending style has not made him top choice as a riding companion. Keep up the commentary. He needs more flames. JB

PDheader:1989-06-06 12:51:00-07:00 0f65e3fc01ee2bbba8f82d12cbcd4dae ∂06-Jun-89 1251 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:chcu275@emx.utexas.edu amateur bike racing in Europe Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 89 12:51:39 PDT Received: from emx.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00161; Mon, 5 Jun 89 18:40:13 PDT Date: Sat, 3 Jun 89 22:47:40 -0500 From: chcu275@emx.utexas.edu (Noel H. Bell) Posted-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 89 22:47:40 -0500 Message-Id: <8906040347.AA07017@emx.utexas.edu> Received: by emx.utexas.edu (5.61/1.5) id AA07017; Sat, 3 Jun 89 22:47:40 -0500 To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: amateur bike racing in Europe

Les - I was going to post this but thought you'd probably have the best answer so I'm conserving bandwidth, etc etc. If you do have a reply feel free to post to the net if you think the question and your answer would be of general interest or just send me e-mail. What is the level of amateur participation in bicycle racing in ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Europe? # of amateur racers per capita or whatever? To what sport in the USofA could you equate this level of amateur participation? Running? Triathlons? Softball? Bowling? I would also be interested in a comparison of the organizations behind bicylce racing in the USofA and European countries --- mostly as far as local, grass roots organization is concerned. Maybe you could write a little article? Sorry, I don't mean to take up all of your time. Thanks for any info. you can provide. Your postings are always enjoyable. Noel Bell Dept. of Chemical Engineering University of Texas at Austin chcu275@emx.utexas.edu

PDheader:1989-06-06 13:08:00-07:00 478cf8fcc20fc5be6bb39afdc18f3562 ∂06-Jun-89 1308 LES re: amateur bike racing in Europe To: chcu275@EMX.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat, 3 Jun 89 22:47:40 -0500.]

I don't have much data, but I recall that Belgium's cycling federation has substantially more than 100,000 members -- about 4 times USCF membership. U.S. population is about 25 times that of Belgium, so their per capita participation appears to be about 100 times ours. Unfortunately, I can't see or post anything to Usenet at the moment. My Unix machine has been broken since Saturday and it may stay that way for awhile. You say: I would also be interested in a comparison of the organizations behind bicylce racing in the USofA and European countries --- mostly as far as local, grass roots organization is concerned. Maybe you could write a little article? Sorry, I don't mean to take up all of your time. That would be an interesting article, but I don't see how it could be "little." Perhaps you could persuade VeloNews or some such periodical to undertake a review of that type. Cheers, Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-06-06 13:37:00-07:00 e380b1ca76f4f402f58a0f1605fd6372 ∂06-Jun-89 1337 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu 63 vs. 65 cm. Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 89 13:37:40 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA21255; Tue, 6 Jun 89 15:37:10 CDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 15:36:44 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 89 15:36:44 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: 63 vs. 65 cm. Keywords: Groan Message-Id: <Q48C33B4@odin>

I had a call from a bike manufacturer who discerned that while the USCF regulations, which you don't care for, say that the distance between the bottom bracket and front axles are to be not more than 63 cm., the UCI regulations now allow that distance to be as much as 65 cm. There are some other funky UCI distances that are also of interest which we haven't adopted either. The guy allows as he talked to Andy five or so months ago and Andy was under the impression then that we had amended our regs for this dimension. I don't think we did (that is, there is not a misprint in the rule book). I do have some sympathy with the caller, but don't see much of a way out of it for this year. It's not easy to interpret 63 as 65 or to grant an exemption for all races hereafter. Any thoughts? Phil. ------ I see you generated at least one letter to the ACM Editor ------ I also see you want to subdivide rec.bicycles.sex into two parts.

PDheader:1989-06-06 15:17:00-07:00 0baff17c062fde666c41b7d311e9f55a ∂06-Jun-89 1517 LES re: 63 vs. 65 cm. To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Tue, 6 Jun 89 15:36:44 CDT.]

> Any thoughts? Yes, if you had not led the attack on my legislation that would have fixed this problem last year, it would not exist now. > I see you generated at least one letter to the ACM Editor Haven't seen it yet. I guess that you Easterners get quicker delivery. > I also see you want to subdivide rec.bicycles.sex into two > parts. Yes, or maybe 3 or 4; e.g. add also rec.bicycle.equipment and rec.bicycle.physiology.

PDheader:1989-06-06 19:23:00-07:00 540d67ce5b352d295a54cbd5baeae90c ∂06-Jun-89 1923 LES re: Internet.flame To: "jobst_brandt%40%hp1900"@HPLABS.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 6 Jun 89 08:38 -0800.]

I see that Roger M. hasn't responded, so you may be right that it was too subtle for him. I haven't had much love for Roger since he sued another rider for damages from an alleged racing incident a couple of years ago -- and won because of a dimwitted judge. -Les

PDheader:1989-06-07 18:24:00-07:00 feafc51371886261f8ba9fea809bc095 ∂07-Jun-89 1824 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jun 89 18:23:56 PDT Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00534; Wed, 7 Jun 89 18:22:35 PDT Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA14774; Tue, 6 Jun 89 21:56:35 PDT Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA20597; Tue, 6 Jun 89 21:55:47 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 21:55:47 PDT From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8906070455.AA20597@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Les, What do you know about the Feds development program. I've spoken with Chuck Wells in CO Springs and he could offer me no plan or guidlines except that they are working on a program and that regional coaching directors will probably be appointed sometime later this year. In the meantime the NCNCA will be discussing the Nor Cal coaching position at the next meeting (mon. the 12th). Unfortunatly nobody in Nor Cal seems to have been in contact with Chuck, except perhaps Ted Fisher and Ted is not in touch with the NCNCA! I'm asking because I feel that I might be a good candidate for the job. Do you know anything about the dist. coach program? I realize that it is not necessarily a b.o.d. topic but these matters do sometimes get discussed nevertheless. If you would like to see some of my ideas for the position I can send them to you. Good luck on your reelection. I hope you win. Happy Trails, Roger

PDheader:1989-06-08 10:55:00-07:00 09610cafbf00b3726ea806422fcdb3f3 ∂08-Jun-89 1055 LES District coaching To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 6 Jun 89 21:55:47 PDT.]

Roger, Sorry, different department -- I have no information about the current alleged program. I have been advocating the development of a regional coaching system for a number of years, without success alas. For what it is worth, claims about a forthcoming program have been made before but nothing came of them. -Les

PDheader:1989-06-08 11:28:00-07:00 ba6cc472a89c7818defbc8ee283cc0ee ∂08-Jun-89 1128 marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Re: District coaching Received: from jade.berkeley.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 89 11:27:19 PDT Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA11726; Thu, 8 Jun 89 11:27:22 PDT Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA09408; Thu, 8 Jun 89 11:26:18 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 89 11:26:18 PDT From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8906081826.AA09408@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: District coaching Les, Ok, a question regarding rules. A rumor has been going around regarding women's upgrades. Is it true that women must place in men's races in order to upgrade now? Also, Lee has been telling some riders who have _almost_ enough points to upgrade that a letter of recommendation from a cat.1 rider or a coach will enable them to upgrade. I've had a number of requests from riders for letters of recommendation. Unfortunately none of these riders has been worthy of an upgrade on the basis of their bike handling ability, though they may be strong enough. Is this letter of recommendation stuff Fed legal? I can just see riders forging these letters left and right to get their upgrade. Is there any way of preventing riders who do not possess adequate bike handling skills from upgrading. The cat. 1/2 races have been far more dangerous this spring than ever before. This could be a serious detriment to developing riders at this level. Having to risk your physical well-being just to compete, many of us have been forgoing races with large fields and tight courses. A few more crashes and I can see many riders like Mark Caldwell and myself dropping out of the sport altogether or at least moving out of this district to race. What can we do about these strong but inexperienced riders who really should be spending more time in the lower categories, improving their bike handling skill (in terms of legeslation). Thanks, Roger

PDheader:1989-06-08 11:51:00-07:00 a52bccfb41f7fef57fb966f67acc1277 ∂08-Jun-89 1151 LES re: District coaching To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 8 Jun 89 11:26:18 PDT.]

> Is it true that women must place in men's races in order to upgrade now? The category system is supposed to be the same for eveyone. That means that a Cat. 2 woman should be capable of competing in a Cat. 2 men's race. Some women's races at the sectional or national level have competition comparable to Cat. 3 mens's races and therefore can be considered for upgrading. Most local women's races do not qualify. In any case, the assessment of what is a qualifying race is up to the district rep. I have no idea where the letter of recommendation idea came from. It is not based on the regulations (Bylaw J, Section 7). Regarding the question of how to inhibit upgrading of unqualified riders, one obvious tactic is jawboning -- give your opinion to both them and the district rep. I don't see a clean way to legislate this. I suppose that we could subtract a certain number of points for each crash they cause, but I'm not sure that would do the job. -Les

PDheader:1989-06-08 18:52:00-07:00 9296d55c5aeeae4f2b1b6b1c4fa6744b ∂08-Jun-89 1852 LES Sprint seeding To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Tom Simonson calls me every couple of weeks with a bunch of rule interpretation questions, most often regarding stage races because he is writing an ever-more elaborate stage race program. Most of his questions are good and reveal ambiguities that I then try to clean up for next year. One of his questions today was "How should you seed sprints with less than 16 riders?" This is a practical question that he must face at the district tracl championships next week. I pointed out that the 1/8 final table on page 106 could be used for 9 to 12 riders, the 1/4 final table could be used for 8 riders (though it has a seeding anomaly in that case), the semi-final table works for 4 riders, and the answer is obvious for 2 or 1. That leaves gaps for 3, 5-8, and 13-15 riders. I think that a complete set of tables should be given in the '90 Rule Book. It will take less than one more page. Do you agree? Would you like to do it?

PDheader:1989-06-08 19:27:00-07:00 daaf0996b0466bbe07a2afd465f2cd8e ∂08-Jun-89 1927 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Sprint seeding Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 89 19:27:52 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA04216; Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:26:53 CDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:27:54 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906090227.AA08169@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:27:54 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Sprint seeding

I worked up a bunch of things along that line, and you may be able to retrieve them out of the Tom Prehn official's manual. Here and there there are various options depending on what combinations and permutations strike your fancy. If you can't find your copy, I should be able to resurrect mine drafts. Lemme no.

PDheader:1989-06-08 19:43:00-07:00 bff1d05161609f1f065036be1edd7842 ∂08-Jun-89 1943 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu on with the sprints Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 89 19:43:09 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA04312; Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:42:20 CDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:43:20 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906090243.AA08190@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:43:20 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: on with the sprints

Actually, I re Hmm. Actually, I rummaged around and found the table, don't know how well it will survive bitnet, because it's 80 columns or more wide, oh well. Page 3 Organization of Championship Sprint Events June 8, 1989 Table 2 Final Qualification Round Sprint and Repechage Seeding In this table, number A1-A18 represent the seeding positions of riders at the start and end of the qualification round. Letters A-P represent riders who lost in an initial heat, but are eligible for further repechage rides. If a seeded rider is defeated in an initial heat, then that rider's seed or rank is taken over by the winning rider. An asterisk (*) in the table indicates a repechage round rider who has been eliminated from further rounds. 2.1 18 Entrants, 12 to Qualify | 2.2 14-18 Entrants, 8 to Qualify Preliminary Repechage | Preliminary Repechage ----Heats-----1--2-3-|--Heats---1--2-3-|---Heats------1--2-3-|--Heats---1--2-3 A1-A12-A18 A1 F L | A-L B9 * * | A1-A12-A18 B1 F L | A-H-L M * * A2-A11-A17 A2 E K | B-K B10 * * | A2-A11-A17 B2 E K | B-G-K N * * A3-A10-A16 A3 D J | C-J B11 * * | A3-A10-A16 B3 D J | C-F-J O * * A4-A9--A15 A4 C I | D-I B10 * * | A4-A9--A15 B4 C I | D-E-I P * * A5-A8--A14 A5 B H | E-H B11 * * | A5-A8--A14 B5 B H | A6-A7--A13 A6 A G | F-G B12 * * | A6-A7--A13 B6 A G |--Heats---1--2-- | | M-P B7 * | | N-O B8 * 2.3 11-14 Entrants, 8 to Qualify | 2.4 12 Entrants, 8 to Qualify Preliminary Repechage | Preliminary Repechage ---Heats-----1--2-3-|--Heats---1--2-3--|---Heats------1--2-3-|--Heats---1--2-- A1-A10 B1 E | A-E-I B6 * * | A1-A8--A12 B1 D H | A-H B5 * A2-A9--A14 B2 D I | B-F-H B7 * * | A2-A7--A11 B2 C G | B-G B6 * A3-A8--A13 B3 C H | C-D-G B8 * * | A3-A6--A10 B3 B F | C-F B7 * A4-A7--A12 B4 B G | | A4-A5--A9 B4 A E | D-E B8 * A5-A6--A11 B5 A F | | 2.5 10 Entrants, 8 to Qualify | 2.6 7-9 Entrants, 4 to Qualify Preliminary Repechage | Preliminary Repechage ---Heats-----1--2---|--Heats---1--2-3--|----Heats-----1--2-3-|--Heats---1--2-3 A1-A10 B1 E | A-D B6 G | A1-A6--A9 B1 C F | A-C-E G * * A2-A9 B2 D | B-C-E B7 F H | A2-A5--A8 B2 B E | B-D-F H * * A3-A8 B3 C | | A3-A4--A7 B3 A D | A4-A7 B4 B |--Heat----1--2-3--| |--Heat----1--2-- A5-A6 B5 A | F-G-H B8 * * | | G-H B4 * 2.7 6 Entrants, 4 to Qualify | 2.8 5 Entrants, 4 to Qualify Preliminary Repechage | Preliminary Repechage ---Heats-----1--2---|--Heats---1--2-3--|----Heats-----1--2---|--Heat----1--2-3 A1-A6 B1 C | A-B-C B4 * * | A1-A4 B1 B | A-B-C B3 D E A2-A5 B2 B | | A2-A3-A5 B2 A C | A3-A4 B3 A | | |--Heat----1--2-- | | D-E B4 * Well that was that, it isn't quite the same structure and designations as the current rule book chart, but it gives you something to work from. Sorry about any funky spacing. Phil

PDheader:1989-06-08 21:47:00-07:00 1d6800f3217cdceceae902e3b9995aec ∂08-Jun-89 2147 LES re: Sprint seeding To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 8 Jun 89 21:27:54 CDT.]

I received a draft of Tom Prehn's manual, which was moderately awful, but never received the "final" version. If that was supposedly distributed to all officials then someone screwed up.

PDheader:1989-06-13 21:51:00-07:00 30bbb936e99c01542d39732ee0dd61e7 ∂13-Jun-89 2151 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh@labrea.stanford.edu Re: Helmet Recommendations: Summary Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 89 21:50:51 PDT Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00130; Tue, 13 Jun 89 21:49:20 PDT Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Tue, 13 Jun 89 21:50:07 PDT Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA22533; Tue, 13 Jun 89 21:51:38 PDT Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) for labrea!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les; id AA22533; Tue, 13 Jun 89 21:51:38 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu.UUCP with UUCP by gatech.edu (5.58/GATECH-8.6) id AA10001 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:42:41 EDT Posted-Date: 13 Jun 89 23:25:41 CDT (Tue) Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/36.2) id AA07071; Tue, 13 Jun 89 23:32:46 CDT Received: by rpp386.Cactus.ORG (smail2.5) id AA16882; 13 Jun 89 23:25:41 CDT (Tue) To: Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Helmet Recommendations: Summary Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <9921@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <39@cvrc.med.upenn.edu> <530@parcplace.pplace.COM> <1932@mcgp1.UUCP> Organization: River Parishes Programming, Plano TX Message-Id: <8906132325.AA16882@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> Date: 13 Jun 89 23:25:41 CDT (Tue) From: decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386.Cactus.ORG!jfh@labrea.stanford.edu (John F. Haugh II)

Les - [ Re: Helmets stick ] I heard that argument while in the service. I was told by a naval officer that tests had been conducted by the government which showed a helmet would stick to the pavement on impact. It also showed that an unprotected skull would have splattered under identical conditions. The remaining argument was that helmets increase fatigue and increase the likelyhood of an accident. To test this theory they measured the forces caused by wearing a helmet or not and found that helmets reduce drag due to being streamlined more than your head. So much for that ... All of this applies to motorcycles, your milage may vary. For historical purposes, this was 1981. This legend was a legend then as well. - John.

PDheader:1989-06-13 22:44:00-07:00 f1ffedec19426fa38c19ae1fc336ba13 ∂13-Jun-89 2244 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu bickering Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 89 22:44:00 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA06265; Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:43:03 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:44:03 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906140544.AA12230@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:44:03 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: bickering

To: Jerry Lace, Executive Director Richard Degarmo, President From: Phil Voxland, Technical Commission Date: June 13, 1989 Re: USA National Teams in Professional Open Events I was more than a little surprised to discover that the USCF may now be entering national teams in the a forthcoming Professional Open even (the Core States races). I HAVE TO EMPHASIZE THAT I AM NOT WRITING IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONCEPT, ALTHOUGH I AM PUZZLED BY AN APPARENT MID-STREAM REVERSAL OF EARLIER DECISIONS. What I do need to bring to your attention are the terms under which teams may be entered. Bylaw L, Section 8, Part 2: " For international events listed as "open" on a UCI professional calendar, the only amateurs who may compete are those representing their national federation" "Bylaw 1K7. National Team Jerseys. Members of Federation teams must wear the uniform designated by the Federation. This uniform may be worn only while actualy representing the Federation or the USA. When permitted by international rules, the Federation may affix a patch bearing a sponsor's inscription not to exceed 64 square cm. in area." UCI regulations further note that such teams are to be coached by USCF managers. My opinion then is that if you are giving permission to "clubs" to enter as if they were "national teams" then, they must wear our national team uniforms, and not the uniforms of their private clubs. I don't see any latitude for interpretation here, it is a clear mandate of the board. Now some words of explanation about why this is so. Some of this you have already heard in a different argument from Jack Simes. The USCF has taken a position that in our amateur open races, where club teams are allowed to compete, amateurs may wear their club's sponsorships. I point out this has been our interpretation, and it is actually open to argument if it is what current UCI regulations permit. Be that as it may, it is how we have been operating, and I think it makes sense. It makes sense because clubs do need to provide their sponsors with public exposure, and competitions in which clubs may enter is certainly the main arena for that advertising. If clubs are allowed to enter, then the fact the professionals might also be entering an amateur race should not prevent club uniforms from being used. If that were the case, then there would be some reason not to invite professionals at all. Professional open races are different however. Amateur clubs and their sponsors simply are not allowed to enter these events, and this keeps the value of professional sponsorships from being diluted in their events. Amateur national teams may enter, but their advertising opportunities are very much limited in size compared with professional clothing regulations. (UCI regulations are apt to be changing in the future; I am here explaining the sense of the present rules). Where advertising is allowed, it is supposedly restricted to sponsors of the federation. A professional open race should have no more than 1/3 of its field be amateur riders. (The reverse is true for an amateur open.) Thus, there really shouldn't be many amateur national teams in any give open pro race, usually not more than one per country. In my view, this is an incentive for athletes to take membership on our national team seriously. I have heard criticism of Mark Hodges for using these kind of "tools" in a coercive way. I don't know if that is true or false, but it is a natural and I think positive aspect for the development of strong national teams. Any national coaching director would do the same. (In my role as tech. chairman I don't have much to do with teams, I am just telling you that there are some consequences of the regulations, and I think they can be good ones. If riders can continually by-pass the national team program towards competing in major events, then we have lost a lot of leverage over recruiting the best teams. NATURALLY, THE LEVERAGE ONLY WORKS IF WE ACTUALLY DO ENTER TEAMS IN MAJOR US COMPETITION. Not at all coincidentally, professional organizers of US events have snubbed US amateur teams in the past few years, so we have not had a lot of opportunity to use these incentives) There have been previous races (Coors) where it was deemed in the interest of the USCF to enter more than one team (Red, White, Blue, as I recall). I think that is a charade unworthy of the spirit of equitable competition. However, in those past cases, the colors were apportioned to sponsored clubs, and those clubs were allowed to use the small area described in the rules for their private sponsorship. The USCF is in a position to "benefit financially" from such a permission. What the most equitable way to do that may depend on the sponsors and their relationships to the USCF. Just to repeat, if Mark Hodges decides it's not in the team's interest to participate, I would have respected that decision. If we have an overarching policy that says we should participate in US pro races that's fine too. I don't like that fact that this decision was reversed after clubs were initially turned down, because I sense there's a lot of last minute scrambling and bad prepartion. I might add I am not sure why Andy Bohlmann was notifying the clubs which were inquiring, that seems more like a coaching office responsibility. In any case, if we are entering teams, then the uniforms which they shall wear are mandated by the regulations. The USCF coaches office should enforce those regulations. It's my job to tell you what the rules are when decisions such as this are made, it is your job to make sure that the rules are actually respected.

PDheader:1989-06-14 13:01:00-07:00 e1d1f0a0a50a611322e3048b48931710 ∂14-Jun-89 1301 LES re: bickering To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:44:03 CDT.]

Your note to the Feel-good Twins looks right to me. BTW, can you adjust your word processor to not double space everything so that I can see more at a time? I have stared a bit at the sprint organization charts that you sent and find that they give more than one way to deal with a given number of riders and are not organized systematically. I will try to put together an algorithm that covers all cases uniquely. Unfortunately, it will have to use a few GO TO's, though that shouldn't bother Fortran addicts like you.

PDheader:1989-06-14 16:04:00-07:00 ca80cabbefc13821fc78722e16919c07 ∂14-Jun-89 1604 kolk@smiley.Stanford.EDU Re: Proposed new newsgroup Received: from smiley.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 89 16:03:59 PDT Received: by smiley.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0) id AA02916; Wed, 14 Jun 89 16:01:15 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 16:01:15 PDT From: kolk@smiley.Stanford.EDU (Dan Kolkowitz) Message-Id: <8906142301.AA02916@smiley.Stanford.EDU> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Proposed new newsgroup

There is an explanation posted in news.groups pretty frequently regarding the procedures. Also, whenever someone proposes a news group or calls for a vote they usually recite the procedures and how they are complying with them. I'll try and dig out a copy and send it to you. You'll need to propose the group there and announce that the discussion period is beginning, followed by the vote, etc... (you'll see). Dan

PDheader:1989-06-14 18:23:00-07:00 31cd893dc2e0e7f5dee45bf7d5068326 ∂14-Jun-89 1823 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: bickering Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 89 18:23:25 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA22746; Wed, 14 Jun 89 20:22:34 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 20:23:33 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906150123.AA12816@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 89 20:23:33 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: bickering

Oh, I didn't know that there was a double spacing problem, I'll have to think about what to do. I guess it's only on things that I upload. Of course the Feelgooders are going ahead with OK'ing club teams. I'm weary. You are right about the overlap in the Spring Charts. I recall that it's sort of a judgement call on how to best deal with some funky numbers. It seems to me the worst scenario was 5 riders. Good luck, if the GO TO's don't seem to work, try a few COME FROMs.

PDheader:1989-06-15 18:23:00-07:00 78205668b743bf240269c64ba0267651 ∂15-Jun-89 1823 LES re: Helmet Recommendations: Summary To: rpp386.Cactus.ORG!jfh@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent 13 Jun 89 23:25:41 CDT.]

Thanks for your recollections of the helmet legend. I would be very interested to know more about the government's alleged sticking test, but I doubt that there actually was one. The first version of this story that I heard, in the early '70s, was that people should wear helmets with patent leather straps rather than real leather straps because the latter would stick on the pavement. Never mind that the helmets with patent leather straps usually had very little padding and, therefore, negligible protection. Later, SkidLid tried to use this legend to discredit Bell and other makers of reasonably safe helmets. Fortunately, SkidLid got what they deserved -- a lawsuit that put them out of business. My belief is that all these stories are bullshit or, if you prefer, urban legends. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-06-15 22:18:00-07:00 cdcdad667a0c4ede7d6b5d8010ff4bde ∂15-Jun-89 2218 LES Mary, Yvonne, VeloNews, and Steve To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I don't know if Andy mentioned this to you, but Mary Hiller of the infamous Fourman Corporate Cup race series just sent a check for $842 to the Federation, trying to convince them that that was all she owed. Andy dutifully cashed it and told her to send more. For some reason Yvonne VanGent sent me an application for a new record. I assume that I should forward it to Andy. The latest VeloNews (June 16) contains an editorial titled "America needs more road races" that includes a tirade over the fact that riders who suffered mishaps in the Trump Tour were openly permitted to motor pace back to their previous position. It then goes on to prove that this practice is "illegal" by citing USCF rules. Of course, USCF rules have no bearing on that race since it was run as an international event, but the UCI rules take essentially the same position, which I am afraid is hypocritical. The editorial writer shows his ignorance both by citing the USCF rules and by not knowing that this is a widespread practice in international races. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate basis for his complaint because the rules and the reality are quite inconsistent. I believe that winking at such things breeds contempt for all rules and that we ought to recognize and limit this practice in U.S. domestic races. I don't think that it should be permitted in all road races, but plausibly in Cat. A races where there is likely good team support. Tom Nee happened to call last night while I was mulling this over and he agreed with the general idea. Specifically, we could add a rule that permits riders to be paced to their former position following a mishap, but only if they begin the chase within 5 minutes of the mishap, only by an official support vehicle, not past the assigned position of that vehicle in the caravan, and in no case within the last 8 km. of the race. That should about do it. Whatcha think? Incidentally, I am currently trying to convince Steve Ball to send to the TT nationals a rider who got a time of 55:30, which put him 13th among all senior riders (29 to qualify for the natz), then was told that he couldn't go to the nationals because he was registered in the 30-34 group. Among other things, it appears that he wasn't offered the option of competing in the regular Senior event -- they just looked at his license and put him in 30-34. As you know, I believe that a time trial is a race against the clock, not some particular group of riders, and that overall placings should be recognized, but I have been arguing with the Championship Committee about this for a decade or so and haven't won yet. I beleive that I will eventually win because I am more persistent than anybody there. In this case, however, Susan Bookspan's awful memo about championship qualifications says about the time trial qualifiers: "2. In addition, all Senior Men who ride 56:00 and under . . . also qualify even if District quota has been filled." Inasmuch as his license says that he is a Senior Man and his time is less than 56:00, he clearly qualifies above the quota. Unfortunately, both Steve and Andy had told him that it doesn't matter -- he can't ride the nationals. I tried to reach Andy today but he took the day off. I called Susan to get her interpretation of this clause and she said she agrees with me. (I hope that she still says that tomorrow.) I called Steve Ball to try to convince him but he said he wouldn't consider it without written guidance from Andy, so I plan to sand-bag Andy tomorrow. If I fail, I will recommend that the rider appeal, then I will select a suitable jury. :-) Oops, I'm beginning to act like Boyden!

PDheader:1989-06-16 00:00:00-07:00 6ba356d4989af540d5f7947a650e8be4 ∂16-Jun-89 0000 bigtex!rpp386!jfh@cs.utexas.edu re: Helmet Recommendations: Summary Received: from cs.utexas.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 89 00:00:34 PDT Posted-Date: Thu Jun 15 23:05:13 1989 Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/36.2) id AA21744; Fri, 16 Jun 89 02:00:48 CDT Received: by bigtex.cactus.org (5.59/smail2.5/04-14-88) id AA07578; Fri, 16 Jun 89 01:35:52 CDT Received: by rpp386.Cactus.ORG (smail2.5) id AA00779; 15 Jun 89 23:05:14 CDT (Thu) To: bigtex!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!LES Subject: re: Helmet Recommendations: Summary Date: Thu Jun 15 23:05:13 1989 Message-Id: <8906152305.AA00779@rpp386.Cactus.ORG> From: jfh@rpp386.Cactus.ORG (John F. Haugh II)

Les - I hadn't heard all of the gory details behind SkidLid. I get my helmet stories from the motorcycle side of the business. I don't know any racers or serious riders who don't wear a helmet, and almost all of them wear Bell. I don't really doubt the test was conducted by the Navy. It does explain and discredit the myth. And it wastes more money ... - John.

PDheader:1989-06-16 09:59:00-07:00 d9f8944c32e64cc84f4336df7a3b718b ∂16-Jun-89 0959 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Mary, Yvonne, VeloNews, and Steve Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 89 09:59:16 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA21008; Fri, 16 Jun 89 11:58:17 CDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 11:59:24 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906161659.AA05297@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 89 11:59:24 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Mary, Yvonne, VeloNews, and Steve

Regarding pacing, I suppose the rules should somehow catch up with reality, but I know that by endorsing pacing we will somehow see it creep into races like district championships where the control of the caravan and officials is not good. As a counter propostion: Forget the 5 minute thingy, I don't know who would be able to reliably enforce it. I would say the pacing should only be up to the last vehicle in the caravan, even if that's somewhat back of the previous position. Should it be stipulated that the officials have actual radio contact with each other to make sure that the pacing is legitimate? Suppose the field is split into two groups, A (leading) and B (chasing), and the caravan is also somewhat divided. A rider in the A group has a mishap, and while it is being taken care of the B group and caravan pass the rider. Does the pacing take the rider to and then through the B group all the way back to A? I would be surprised if it was allowed. Those are my thoughts.

PDheader:1989-06-16 11:53:00-07:00 0c3d4da72302dbedfcaa4808efd6a36b ∂16-Jun-89 1153 LES re: Mary, Yvonne, VeloNews, and Steve To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 16 Jun 89 11:59:24 CDT.]

Your suggestion that the rider not be permitted to pass group B is plausible provided that we define what constitutes a group. Or do you mean that the rider shouldn't be paced past anyone? The proposed 5 minute rule is to ensure that someone doesn't get paced from way back. Inasmuch as there should be a race official in the support vehicle, it should be enforceable. BTW, through continued harassment I finally succeeded in getting Jerry to move (after a fashion) on one of the disciplinary issues -- he had Andy write a letter to Paul Roberts in Alaska that lists USCF licensees who competed in the Iditabike race and directs Roberts to suspend them. I looked through the record application that Yvonne submitted and noted that it suffers from a standard defect: the course certification does not mention the USCF measurement procedure and almost cetainly is based on centerline distance, which can be substantially different from the distance according to our standards. I pasted a note to Andy about this on the certification letter.

PDheader:1989-06-16 16:13:00-07:00 1e820b7b4aef114e2b95c0663d8232da ∂16-Jun-89 1613 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:jim@thrush.STANFORD.EDU Re: who is rainbow Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 89 16:13:53 PDT Received: from Thrush.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00114; Fri, 16 Jun 89 16:12:25 PDT Message-Id: <8906162312.AA00114@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Received: by thrush.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Fri, 16 Jun 89 16:13:21 PDT To: Les Earnest <les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Cc: jim@thrush.STANFORD.EDU Subject: Re: who is rainbow In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 16 Jun 89 15:37:52 PDT.

<8906162237.AA09856@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 16:13:18 PDT From: Jim Helman <jim@thrush.STANFORD.EDU> Thanks. I can't remember every hearing of or meeting any Linda Kaplan's, so unless a screw has come loose in my head or hers, she's probably no relation to my "Rainbow". I posted an article to comp.arch on some apparently erroneous CPU benchmark figures published in IEEE CG&A comparing a MIPS-based Silicon Graphics workstation to Sun-3s. (The SGI machine had been underrated by nearly 10x.) It was not an extraordinary posting. And then I get this postcard of First & Main in Los Altos saying: "Jim.... I saw your address in comp.arch and couldn't resist mailing you this card. I wish you much success and happiness in your endeavors. - Rainbow" Bizzare. -jim BTW, thanks for posting the AP News articles to soc.culture.china. It was a valuable service. I hope you didn't catch any copyright flak for it. I really can't imagine that AP would object anyway.

PDheader:1989-06-19 17:03:00-07:00 bd14fd423d8a9cbffb83f0f4c99bd2a5 ∂19-Jun-89 1703 iba@ICS.UCI.EDU net.bicycles postings Received: from ICS.UCI.EDU ([128.195.1.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jun 89 17:03:16 PDT Received: from ics.uci.edu by ICS.UCI.EDU id aa21052; 19 Jun 89 16:55 PDT To: Les@sail.stanford.EDU cc: iba@ICS.UCI.EDU Subject: net.bicycles postings Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 16:55:22 -0700 From: Wayne Iba <iba@ICS.UCI.EDU> Message-ID: <8906191655.aa21052@ICS.UCI.EDU>

What are you trying to accomplish? At least twice now you have elected to make a personal attack on someone for posting something that you took issue with. I believe this demonstrates that you are worse than what you make out your targets to be -- in whichever aspect you care to consider. You certainly don't demonstrate that you have superior reasoning ability. --wayne

PDheader:1989-06-19 17:28:00-07:00 3d739adc7fcb61b6a754bb00034e4841 ∂19-Jun-89 1728 iba@ICS.UCI.EDU Re: net.bicycles postings Received: from ICS.UCI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jun 89 17:28:42 PDT Received: from ics.uci.edu by ICS.UCI.EDU id aa22001; 19 Jun 89 17:22 PDT To: Les Earnest <LES@sail.stanford.EDU> cc: iba@ICS.UCI.EDU Subject: Re: net.bicycles postings In-reply-to: Your message of 19 Jun 89 17:17:00 -0700.

<z0#ra@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 17:22:22 -0700 From: Wayne Iba <iba@ICS.UCI.EDU> Message-ID: <8906191722.aa22001@ICS.UCI.EDU> Good for you. But if you are arguing that by making a personal attack you are identifying poor reasoning, you are guilty of poor reasoning yourself. I'm not defending anybody. By all means clear up mis-conceptions and errors of reasoning. You are not doing it. --wayne

PDheader:1989-06-19 17:42:00-07:00 5d4de5a2fb6798f8e5e96cec28cef188 ∂19-Jun-89 1742 LES re: who is rainbow To: jim@THRUSH.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 16 Jun 89 16:13:18 PDT.]

> BTW, thanks for posting the AP News articles to soc.culture.china. It > was a valuable service. I hope you didn't catch any copyright flak > for it. I really can't imagine that AP would object anyway. I received no formal complaints, but there was some flaming about it on SCC and I figured that I shouldn't press my luck by continuing the service indefinitely, as a number of people have urged me to do. -Les

PDheader:1989-06-20 08:06:00-07:00 d37833c6a9bd7f6613e6d145a4cd73f4 ∂20-Jun-89 0806 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Officials Fees Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jun 89 08:06:20 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA02511; Tue, 20 Jun 89 10:05:27 CDT Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 10:04:20 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 20 Jun 89 10:04:20 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Officials Fees Message-Id: <Q49E5B03@odin>

I have only quickly dashed through your mailing for the Annual Meeting. (I see you still don't have an overstrike capability, tsk, tsk). In any case I notice several proposals about officials fees. I would rather not abandon the simplicity of the four race categories, and so I wonder if there isn't some alternative way to prop up the fees structure for middle level events. Have you thought of anything like this? More will follow, I'm sure.

PDheader:1989-06-20 15:22:00-07:00 1d8329397bace2805dc7c738b6794855 ∂20-Jun-89 1522 LES re: Officials Fees To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Tue, 20 Jun 89 10:04:20 CDT.]

I'm afraid that a simple table based on race category and position won't hack it. The particular table that we have grossly discriminates against "other officials." It also pays a lot better for a single Cat. B event that takes two hours than for a series of Cat. C events covering 9 hours. Cat. D race meets may have officials working all day for $10, which is quite unfair. There are several ways that this could be fixed. One way would be to have the same kind of table but with smaller values and make the fees additive for all the events on the program. It would probably be necessary to apply MIN and MAX operators to make such a scheme reasonable. Another approach that I think would be fairer would be to have basic rates along the lines of the current table, but with lower values, and also allocate a certain fraction of the total entry fees to an official's "pot," which would be evenly divided among the race officials. The total number of riders and the entry fee is a fairly good measure of the total amount of work involved. Still another approach would be to establish hourly rates for each combination of race category and position. I would imagine that there would be some arguments about when the clock starts and stops under such a scheme, but this could be made reasonably fair.

PDheader:1989-06-20 15:39:00-07:00 0ce0abe308ee57a12d2fde9b73ce7189 ∂20-Jun-89 1539 LES re: net.bicycles postings To: iba@ICS.UCI.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 19 Jun 89 17:22:22 -0700.]

Being a veteran of twenty-some years of bboard wars, I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of how they work. I also know that some people have a lower tolerance for confrontations than others. I apologize if I have offended your sensibilities, but I do not plan to change tactics. I believe that snide remarks have a valid moderating function, though I'm afraid I have sometimes been too subtle. For example, shortly after I skewered Roger Marquis a couple of weeks ago I received a friendly personal message from him. This suggested that he didn't follow what I had said -- Roger is not the type who "turns the other cheek." In the current case, Mr. DaPina seems to have accurately interpreted my remark and, naturally, counterflamed. I am content that he received the message and I will let it go at that. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-06-20 15:56:00-07:00 35465d66e9f1be1edce5fc1914e05dc1 ∂20-Jun-89 1556 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Secret to be revealed, of course) Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jun 89 15:56:49 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA26074; Tue, 20 Jun 89 17:55:54 CDT Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 17:54:44 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 20 Jun 89 17:54:44 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: (Secret to be revealed, of course) Message-Id: <Q49EC946@odin>

A reliable source advises me that the elected directors from the Central Section will not include long-time director and ex-president Voxland. So far no tears. None at all. One of the recurrent phrases in our rhetoric is it will be "interesting". It will be interesting to see how everything develops. I would much appreciate your support in retaining my candidacy to the FIAC (which has already been formally proposed to the FIAC). I have even wondered -- anticipating this as an inevitability -- whether positions/individuals such as Ernie and myself should not be institutionalized. That is, so long as an incumbent representative/member of some of these international bodies remains in good standing should they be entitled to attend certain BOD meetings ex officio. I'm not seriously proposing this, but the IOC charter mandates that any of it's executive committee members are obligated to be voting members of it's highest executive committee. (Or something along those lines). It is not possible to discuss this independently of the persons involved, and I have an obvious vested interest. I do not have at hand results of other Board races, they will be forthcoming soon enough. You shouldn't worry about your own position, however.

PDheader:1989-06-20 16:16:00-07:00 e08ecd72102b03adf8999b76de296427 ∂20-Jun-89 1616 LES re: (Secret to be revealed, of course) To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Tue, 20 Jun 89 17:54:44 CDT.]

You may not be disappointed but I am. Sounds like you didn't campaign much, as usual. I certainly agree that you should be a party to Board meetings as long as you are the FIAC representative. As for Ernie, that is another matter. I note that if you had flushed him from USOC when he lost his seat on the Board this would not be an issue and we would all be better off. If I do make the cut, I will plan to go again for TC. If I beat Ernie and whoever else goes for it, I hope that you will be willing to continue as a member of the commission.

PDheader:1989-06-22 11:48:00-07:00 ea1303dd80136a659e180006f5f33796 ∂22-Jun-89 1148 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: Helmets in Tour De Trump Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 89 11:48:08 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08812; Thu, 22 Jun 89 11:46:29 PDT Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:48:22 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) Posted-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:48:22 CDT Message-Id: <8906221848.AA12730@cs.utexas.edu> Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/36.2) id AA12730; Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:48:22 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Helmets in Tour De Trump Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <9833@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <7156@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1280021@hpfcdq.HP.COM> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

In article <9833@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >Jane Sczechowski writes: >>>Where helmets required in the Tour De Trump? >> [. . .] >>I think the consensus was that US Amateur rules were being applied since >>the race was open to amateurs. The US rules call for ANSI approved helmets >>(or something like that); it is the same rule which is applied at USCF races. >> >>The hairnet things are technically not permitted. We did see some of those >>in the 'Trump and decided the officials decided they were doing enough just >>to get the guys to wear headgear. > >The Trump Tour was conducted under international amateur rules, which >require a helmet but permit hairnets, so the officials did it right. >In international pro races in this country, competitors may ride without >a helmet. I expect that the international rules will eventually be >tightened up, but quite a few more riders will have to die before the >dimwitted UCI officials get the message. > >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 I was just going through old rec.bicycles and saw this. When somebody comes up with a useful but dangerous innovation (such as the Italian tether) it quickly gets banned. The argument seems to be that racers shouldn't have to do unnecessarily dangerous things to stay competitive. If everybody voluntarily wore a helmet and somebody started winning races aided by NOT wearing one, the ``innovation'' would likely be banned. It seems not to work from the other direction. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

PDheader:1989-06-22 14:23:00-07:00 2a89a95738b3a735229a98390ce04d98 ∂22-Jun-89 1423 LES re: Helmets in Tour De Trump To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:48:22 CDT.]

Quite right; there are many examples of this official conservatism in the history of cycling. For example, when safety bicycles were introduced in the 1880s they were banned on safety grounds. When it soon became apparent that they were both safer and faster than the "regulars" (high wheelers), the safeties were banned on the grounds of "unfair competition." That lasted until a majority of cyclists had switched to the new design. In 1938, a French rider named Charles Mochet used a vehicle called the Velocar, a recumbant bike with a streamlined hull, to break a number of existing cycling records and to beat some of the leading cyclists in direct competition. The cycling establishment found this hard to accept inasmuch as Mochet had shown only moderate cycling abilities in the past. The UCI reacted by creating a number of new rules that outlawed recumbant bicycles and aerodynamic fittings. They then proudly announced that Mochet had broken no records because he had not used a _real_ bicycle. As a direct result, recumbant bicycle technology was effectively suppressed until recent years. One remarkable recent change was the acceptance of disc wheels when Moser used them to set a new hour record. There were two apparent reasons why this happened: (1) Moser was already an accepted international rider when he used them; (2) more important, the President of UCI was Italian and he immediately issued a public statement declaring that disc wheels are legal, thus preempting the Technical Commission. If either of these conditions had not been true, it is likely that disc wheels, like other substantially aerodynamic components, would still be outlawed. Incidentally, the alleged reason for disc wheels being acceptable was that the disc was an integral structural member rather than an aerodynamic component. However, disc wheels made by Campagnola currently have Kevlar spokes with an aerodynamic cover, which is in clear violation of UCI rules. The reason that this is being overlooked seems to be related to the fact that Campy is a major sponsor of the UCI. Cheers, Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-06-22 14:37:00-07:00 6128815d73a78f6f9f34f9d26cc1d86d ∂22-Jun-89 1437 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: Sticky Helmet Flames Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 89 14:37:28 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09469; Thu, 22 Jun 89 14:35:46 PDT Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/36.2) id AA03679; Thu, 22 Jun 89 16:37:38 CDT Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 16:37:29 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 16:37:29 CDT Message-Id: <8906222137.AA01608@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA01608; Thu, 22 Jun 89 16:37:29 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Sticky Helmet Flames Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <10179@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <25627@agate.BERKELEY.EDU: <5669@cs.utexas.edu> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

I'm well aware that in most states the disclaimer dodge has no weight in court, at least if there's any negligence. I used to teach in public schools. We knew all along that it existed to discourage people from suing, not to help us win a suit. For some reason, implied consent seems to be stronger than explicit consent. Implied consent has protected hockey at all levels from many, although not all, personal injury suits. At the collegiate level, fear of suits has led to stronger rules against fighting and stricter enforcement of those rules, much to the distress of my alma mater, the University of North Dakota. (Intimidation was always a big part of their game.) I consider that a good thing. I guess the corresponding thing in bicycle racing would be policing of malicious riders. I presume from the earlier discussion of hooking (esp. Moksny's posting) that a serious attempt is made at that. I'm a bit taken aback that implied consent appears to give bicycle racing no protection against lawsuits. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

PDheader:1989-06-24 17:52:00-07:00 634ca91f76814184d3143bdd81c1ad51 ∂24-Jun-89 1752 LES Election results To: Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

I just got my copy in the mail and see that you missed by 8 votes. Sigh. I know how that feels, having missed by one vote in '86. I also see that there is an error in the report regarding West directors where it states that John Tarbert gets a one year term. In fact, he got more votes (170) than Scot Bradley (159), so Scot gets the one-year term. I anticipated that there might be confusion about this, so I went over the ballot wording with Andy before the ballots were released and it was stated correctly there that the person who is elected with the least votes gets the one year term. I grumbled about this to both Dale Hughes and Andy Bohlmann today. I hope that it gets cleaned up quickly.

PDheader:1989-06-25 17:07:00-07:00 6a0e0551fcbec53ca13333e050ece19e ∂25-Jun-89 1707 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Election results Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 89 17:07:01 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA08717; Sun, 25 Jun 89 19:06:07 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Jun 89 19:07:01 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906260007.AA21362@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 25 Jun 89 19:07:01 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Election results

When I relayed the election information on to you, it was without knowing the counts. I suppose if I had campaigned more there could have been a different outcome. Nonetheless, I am rather content with the outcome of the moment. Of course, more intrigue awaits at every corner. I seem to remember getting elected on the premise that rejuventaion of the board was a good idea. And after 8 years or so, what was a good idea then may not be all that bad an idea now. On the other hand, things are f****d up still. Phil

PDheader:1989-06-25 20:42:00-07:00 f9e3765b809586e6a6d56e9dc2e4b840 ∂25-Jun-89 2042 LES re: Election results To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun, 25 Jun 89 19:07:01 CDT.]

> I seem to remember getting elected on the premise that rejuventaion > of the board was a good idea. And after 8 years or so, what was > a good idea then may not be all that bad an idea now. Yes, we were part of McFadden's overthrow conspiracy that, fortunately, never got off the ground. But that was 10 years ago, not 8. > On the other hand, things are f****d up still. And in some ways, getting worse. I wish that we could get some more people on the Board with functioning brains. I would happily retire if that were to come about. Of course, the Federation is not doing much worse than the federal government. Instead of choosing Presidents with foresight and statesmenship we somehow end up with political hacks.

PDheader:1989-06-26 07:41:00-07:00 a066abf8203922343df75c5f800104e0 ∂26-Jun-89 0741 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Re: Sticky Helmet Flames Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jun 89 07:41:46 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09734; Mon, 26 Jun 89 07:40:05 PDT Message-Id: <8906261440.AA09734@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> From: druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Date: Sun, 25 Jun 89 22:40 MDT To: att!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Sticky Helmet Flames News-Path: drutx!mtgzz!mtgzy!mtuxo!att!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!pasteur!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four!les References: <25627@agate.BERKELEY.EDU: <5669@cs.utexas.edu> <10179@polya.Stanford.EDU>

I was there at the 1981 NorCal Track Championships when Bob Harrington caused he accident. I still cannot believe that he sued and won, but that was the type of guy he was(and probably still is). Bruce ps- in my opinion, Bob lost the sprint(which was the cause of the altercation) because when the eventual winner jumped, Bob was caught behind his own teamate who did not respond to the move, leaving Bob momentarily sitting there wondering what to do until he decided to come around his teamate and chase.

PDheader:1989-06-26 11:14:00-07:00 bf557c25388806c257e82744aa722fbd ∂26-Jun-89 1114 LES re: Sticky Helmet Flames To: druwy!bhilden@ATT.ATT.COM [In reply to message sent Sun, 25 Jun 89 22:40 MDT.]

Actually, Harrington (whose first name is John, by the way) became a different person after that incident -- much less flamboyant and not quite "with it." I believe that he suffered brain damage as a result of the crash he caused. He subsequently lost his bike shop because of inept business handling and his wife left him. Those developments were part of the basis of his outrageous claim against the USCF. Also, Harrington actually won the sprint that immediately preceded the punch-out. It was against Greg Berg. Greg was certainly no angel but he did not foul Harrington on that occasion as John had asserted. Cheers, -Les

PDheader:1989-06-27 12:28:00-07:00 aa812ed5a4f7ba28856f73ccd993321a ∂27-Jun-89 1228 LES Who gets the 1 year term? To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

[FYI, I mailed this to last night to the interested parties. There has been a further development this morning, mentioned at the end. -Les] MEMORANDUM U.S.C.F. MEMORANDUM 1989 June 26 To: Dale Hughes, Election Committee Chairman From: Les Earnest, Legislation Committee Chairman Cc: Jerry Lace, Andy Bohlmann, Ken Waugh, Rich DeGarmo, Scot Bradley, John Tarbert Subject: Who gets the 1 year term? References: [1] Ken Waugh, letter to Jerry Lace, June 20, 1989. [2] New York Not-for-profit Corporation Law, Article 705(b). [3] USCF Constitution, Article V, Section 1, Part 1(c); USCF Rule Book, 1989. I believe that the published election results [1] are in error in the West Section in that they show a one year term for John Tarbert even though he received more votes than Scot Bradley, who is shown as having a two year term. Unfortunately, the published results are apparently based on misinformation that appeared on the ballot. Dealing with problems of this sort after the election is always very awkward. I thought that I had dealt with it before the election but something apparently went wrong in the ballot preparation process. I request that this issue be resolved as quickly as possible so as to minimize the potential embarrassment. Background Elections to fill partial terms of directors have been held only since 1981, after I pointed out to the Board in 1980 that the practice of appointing directors to fill vacancies was illegal under New York law [2] and introduced corrective legislation. The current USCF Constitution [3] says: ``At least one Director shall be elected from each region, if one has been nominated.'' Note that this does _not_ say ``. . . shall be elected from each region _for a two year term.''_ In fact, there is no basis in the Constitution for believing that some directors should be given longer terms than others based on which regions they represent. When elections to fill vacancies began, the logical assumption was made that candidates who were elected with the smaller number of votes got the shorter term. I believe that there have been no exceptions to this policy to date. When the ballots for this year's election were being prepared, Andy Bohlmann sent me a draft. I noted several errors and gave Andy the corrections over the phone. Those corrections involved the number of directors to be elected in the East and West and paragraph 5 on the East and West ballots. The draft ballot for the West, to which I objected, read as follows. ``5. There will be five (5) candidates elected to the Board from the West Section. At least one (1) candidate from Regions 1, 2, and 3 will be elected. Of the remaining two (2) vacancies, the remaining candidate (from any region) receiving the most votes will serve a two year term with the other candidate serving a one year term to complete an unfilled term of a Board member.'' I pointed out to Andy that this gave unjustified preference to directors from regions 1, 2, and 3 (including me), that it was inconsistent with past practice and was not based on any written regulations. I asserted that it should say that the one year term goes to the candidate who gets elected with the smallest number of votes. Andy agreed to make these changes and apparently did fix the other things that I pointed out, but apparently paragraph 5 did not get corrected for some reason. I didn't see the final ballot -- in fact, I still haven't seen it, but Ken Waugh verified on the phone this morning that the cited paragraph was unchanged from the draft. Conclusions It is always embarassing to challenge election results, especially if they have already been announced, because the abstract principles involved tend to get mixed up with the personalities and status of the individuals who are affected. It appears to me that in this case an incorrect interpretation found its way onto the draft ballot and that it somehow didn't get fixed even after the problem was pointed out and the correction was supposedly accepted. I hope that Scot realizes that I have maintained a consistent position on this issue since before the election and that I regret having it surface unexpectedly at this point. I urge that this misunderstanding be dealt with promptly. /Signature/ ---------------------------- Further developments: Andy B. finally returned my call this morning, after I had tried to reach him on Saturday and outlined the issue to Kathy, then called him again yesterday, found him "on another line" and left another message. Andy claims that he had presented my ballot rewording to Jerry and Pam and that they rejected it. I pointed out to Andy that I had finally called Jerry yesterday afternoon to discuss what had happened and that Jerry acted as if he had never heard of this issue before. It may be hard to determine who is responsible for this fiasco, but I am extremely annoyed about having my advice apparently accepted, then dropped without notice on such an important issue. I am now rewriting Item 2 of the draft HoD agenda to leave no room for future maneuvers on this matter.

PDheader:1989-06-29 13:41:00-07:00 994bc1e915fd775893bad93524b1a60b ∂29-Jun-89 1341 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Insurance (future fiasco??) Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 89 13:40:58 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA23331; Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:39:59 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:41:26 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906292041.AA01416@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:41:26 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Insurance (future fiasco??)

Les, could you give a call to Andy and talk through with him some of this latest encounteres with Risk Management reps. from the USCF insurance companies? Andy is quite agitated and thinks we have a problem brewing, in part because of management's Head-in-the-sand attitude about really doing something on the local leve to control some losses. I tried to call Richard on this topic, but he's off on a junket to ORE-IDA.

PDheader:1989-06-29 15:27:00-07:00 fbd779ff1c7df5f2e574dd5d1734ca29 ∂29-Jun-89 1527 LES re: Insurance (future fiasco??) To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:41:26 CDT.]

I just called Andy, but he was unavailable -- reportedly talking to Jerry. I'll try to link up ASAP. I have started calling Jerry about once a week to harass him about things that he should be doing but isn't. Perhaps this will be another item. I was amazed to learn from Andy earlier today that Jerry wants to issue race permits to Mary Hiller, who earlier stiffed the Federation out of several thousand dollars and overcharged the riders some $60,000 in one event alone. She has since made a token payment of a bit over $800, so Jerry wants to forgive all. I want to sue her in Small Claims Court.

PDheader:1989-06-29 20:26:00-07:00 50956e267fbace952e5f5a50fd52611f ∂29-Jun-89 2026 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Insurance (future fiasco??) Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 89 20:26:27 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA29563; Thu, 29 Jun 89 22:25:33 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 22:27:00 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8906300327.AA01592@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 89 22:27:00 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Insurance (future fiasco??)

The new morality has it that there is no greater sin than saying no to a race organizer. Does this have anything to do with who is the president?

PDheader:1989-06-30 17:06:00-07:00 cc40742e243cf54329e74a20a74aada3 ∂30-Jun-89 1706 LES re: Insurance (future fiasco??) To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 29 Jun 89 22:27:00 CDT.]

> Does this have anything to do with who is the president? We seem to be blessed (?) with a similar mentality in both USCF and US Presidents. At least the US President occasionally takes a strong stand, though he invariably does it on a stupid issue such as flag-burning. Illness may affect ongoing political developments -- I gather that Richard is still rather ill, though he claims to be recovering. Beth says that her illness is now kicking up, which has forced her to cancel her Worlds trip. On the local front, Joan has just had another bout with breast cancer. I brought her home from the hospital yesterday. Looks like she will come out OK, but she faces about 6 weeks of radiation and chemotherapy. Have you discovered soc.culture.nordic on Usenet?

PDheader:1989-06-30 17:45:00-07:00 6e73b016c2216944225a5122eaae518b ∂30-Jun-89 1745 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Insurance (future fiasco??) Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 89 17:45:04 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA19930; Fri, 30 Jun 89 19:44:00 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 19:45:26 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8907010045.AA02282@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 30 Jun 89 19:45:26 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Insurance (future fiasco??)

Please give my best wishes to Joan, Les!! I had talked to Beth recently (after the election), and she mentioned the situation she's facing. As Beth said "it looks as though her and Richard's lifestyles are catching up". It's easy for us to tell each of them to de-pressurize their lives, but I'm afraid that wouldn't do much good. I'm prowling a few boards on Usenet, and I think as rapidly as I became aware of soc.culture.nordic I unsubscribed. I've avoided the humor and alt.sex board <--- prefer a local BBS. However, the rumors board on Usenet has been mildly amusing. Phil (continuing to be content with the election results, btw)

PDheader:1989-07-03 14:52:00-07:00 0ff4dacc88513ef991039b286f982c64 ∂03-Jul-89 1452 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Tech. Comm. Rep. at Road Natz Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jul 89 14:52:40 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA10832; Mon, 3 Jul 89 16:51:39 CDT Date: Mon, 3 Jul 89 16:53:02 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8907032153.AA04172@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 3 Jul 89 16:53:02 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Tech. Comm. Rep. at Road Natz

You may be (oddly enough) right, perhaps it was thought that I would be doing it, but I'll be in Moscow at the Jr. Worlds and FIAC meeting then, I think. I should talk to Andy. Hmmm, would you care to do it? Or have any other ideas? Phil

PDheader:1989-07-03 17:34:00-07:00 397b8c62b223c98d36ad8f2b20c64974 ∂03-Jul-89 1734 LES re: Tech. Comm. Rep. at Road Natz To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 3 Jul 89 16:53:02 CDT.]

I will not have time to go to Road Natz -- I've got a lot of work to do on legislation. Who were the key officials that got appointed? The BoD minutes say "To be decided." -Les

PDheader:1989-07-04 11:06:00-07:00 f21449cb11e4296729c8d1d4f558c508 ∂04-Jul-89 1106 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu officials pogroms Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jul 89 11:06:09 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA25876; Tue, 4 Jul 89 13:05:15 CDT Date: Tue, 4 Jul 89 13:06:39 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8907041806.AA04739@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 4 Jul 89 13:06:39 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: officials pogroms

To: Andy Bohlmann From: Phil Voxland Re: Officials Program Materials Date: July 4, 1989 Just a few comments on the officials program materials you have recently express mailed to me: (1) Category 3 & 4 evaluation form contents are fine, although I think the final form as it goes to NCR paper should be more "roomy". The layout is a little cramped, perhaps the area for comment should just be white space, rather than lines. This form (unlike the promoter circle the numbers form) doesn't end up with anything other than words to look at. That's perhaps OK, since district reps might accumulate these and summarize the words into a numeric rating at a later time, and I suppose an official might want to look more at words than numbers. (Whereas for our national level selection of officials for upgrading I think "numbers" have an important way of helping compare individuals.) Thinking more about this, why is the form JUST for Category 3 & 4, couldn't it also be used for higher levels of officials? Since this form is targeted for use in conjunction with a race, I think that it could be generalized for all officials. I might (getting back to numbers) suggest that you add a final line or item along this line: "IV. Would you recommend that this official be appointed to other similar races and to the same duties? __ Yes, without any reservations __ Yes, with some reservations __ Uncertain __ No By the way, why Roman Numerals? <--- Minor point (2) The promoters "Post Card" needs a little bit of help Pre-race organization ... "inacceptable" should be "unacceptable" I see that this card is intended to be mailed to the USCF, but the other larger form stays with the district rep. Is the card only for Category A and B races? Then this might make sense. I guess I'm a little puzzled where the paper work should go and why. (3) Officials program outline looks good also. I don't think we had decided that the full bore evaluation of officials should be an annual affair. It MIGHT be a good idea, I just don't remember planning it out that way. If you do want to take that up, then I would like to see the original form continued, with some modifications that ADD to the form but otherwise change nothing in the way the items were configured. What I would propose to add would be a question that would ask something like: "Enter the number which most nearly indicates whether you would recommend the official should be appointed to be a chief referee or chief official at each of the following types of events:" National Road Championships ___ 4 = Yes, No reservations Pro-Am Classic Criterium ___ District Road Championship ___ 3 = Yes, with reservations Weekly local criterium series ___ 2 = Probably not National Track Championships ___ Regional Track Competition ___ 1 = Definitely not" (4) On the appointment process: I STRONGLY (THAT'S WHY THE BIG HOWARD ALTHOFF LETTERS) URGE THAT YOU NOT SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM OFFICIALS FOR SPECIFIC EVENTS NEXT YEAR. I THINK THAT THIS WILL TAKE SOME HEAT OUT OF THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS. I NOTE THAT THE UCI DOESN'T ASK, AND FOR GOOD REASON. OFFICIALS GET ALL BENT WHEN THEY DON'T RECEIVE THE EVENTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE INTERESTED. I KNOW THIS WILL MEAN THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL TURN DOWN THEIR ASSIGNMENTS FOR GOOD AND PERSONAL REASONS (SCHEDULES, ETC). -------- I'll send a copy of this to Les, although I don't know if he got the original mailing. Les: Hahaha I just noticed I had a category response labeled as "Yes, No reservations" how's that for confusing wording?

PDheader:1989-07-04 12:02:00-07:00 522b91fb966161f9536bc15b4d43ea76 ∂04-Jul-89 1202 LES re: officials pogroms To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Tue, 4 Jul 89 13:06:39 CDT.]

Thanks for sending me your review, but I didn't get the form on which it is based. I did get a "Venue Checklists" from Andy that looks generally reasonable. It probably should be specialized a bit according to the type of event -- there are different questions to be asked about point-to-point road races, time trials, criteriums, cyclocrosses, and track meets. This list appears to be addressed to promoters, but there should be another, slightly different list for chief referees. Should I infer from your silence on road natz officials that you don't know who is doing it?

PDheader:1989-07-05 08:10:00-07:00 a448f89b116442d6812a12bd0b6b3a8d ∂05-Jul-89 0810 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: re: officials pogroms Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jul 89 08:10:46 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA11831; Wed, 5 Jul 89 10:09:51 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 10:07:27 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 5 Jul 89 10:07:27 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: re: officials pogroms Message-Id: <Q4B2227B@odin> In-Reply-To: <t8ZUX@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

Yes. (I seem to be receiving your mail at the office, where I don't have my notes on who's who at the races) So at the moment I don't know who's going to Park City). I think I remember joking some with Andy about having Susan Bookspan do it, and then we may have settled upon David Poole, but I haven't the certainty about that which you need._

PDheader:1989-07-07 08:41:00-07:00 9c13a9f86e5177dff9a0b2c195af4efb ∂07-Jul-89 0841 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:roadman@Portia.stanford.edu Re: Recumbent Racing Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 89 08:40:56 PDT Received: from Portia.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05228; Fri, 7 Jul 89 08:39:03 PDT Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA10396; Fri, 7 Jul 89 08:38:23 PDT Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 08:38:23 PDT From: arthur walker <roadman@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8907071538.AA10396@Portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Recumbent Racing In-Reply-To: your article <10441@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: portia!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four!les

I think Dan Mocsny's conjectures presuppose also a relaxation of 1I1b, "no fairings". Dunnigan hills would be a candidate for a race where a Vector might ride away from a 12P field....cheyenne-denver too. Maybe even benicia. I agree that unfaired recumbent racers probably don't (if there are any!) have a chance so it's understandable that they haven't appeared at the line. art walker

PDheader:1989-07-07 13:59:00-07:00 0d8ba4ecbc8c8a578581ed0cd155ca9c ∂07-Jul-89 1359 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Visas & Mtn. Bike Stuff Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 89 13:59:46 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA01711; Fri, 7 Jul 89 15:58:48 CDT Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 16:00:12 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8907072100.AA03170@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 7 Jul 89 16:00:12 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Visas & Mtn. Bike Stuff

Due to the fact that my visa for the Soviet Union arrived before my scheduled (Sunday) departure, I will be shortly leaving for Moscow and the Jr. World Championships + FIAC Board meetings. I do not plan to bring back any souvenir VODKA, you can buy it here, anywhere. -- Last year there was worked up some draft Mtn Bike rules for the inclusion in the USCF rule book. Are you including anysuch in your future legislation packets? The Yahoos will resist putting it into our regs, most especially because of the view that NORBA (which isn't anything) should live its own life including setting fees, regs, etc. I think we should go ahead with adding the rules in and establishing an Off-Road Commission, but NOT a separate corporation and Board. The topic is too complex to be decided withing the time frame of this year's meetings, but should not be allowed to drift without structure.

PDheader:1989-07-07 14:30:00-07:00 ae92ce874383ae3594d47a0bbfbb80da ∂07-Jul-89 1430 LES re: Recumbent Racing To: roadman@PORTIA.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 7 Jul 89 08:38:23 PDT.]

If you permit fairings, of course, they should be permitted for the diamond-frame designs too, and the nature of the competition shifts. I would like to see someone try an unfaired recumbent in regular competition, for example in a time trial, to see how well they do. Note that Rule 1I1(a) limits the length to 2 meters, however, which bars the use of long wheelbase designs such as Easy Racer. Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-07-07 14:57:00-07:00 2bf7125459bfa9efdf7a506dc6623f43 ∂07-Jul-89 1457 LES re: Visas & Mtn. Bike Stuff To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 7 Jul 89 16:00:12 CDT.]

I agree that the NORBA connection should not be allowed to drift. You may recall that my May 12 memo to the feelgood twins pointed out the need to define and legislate relationships. After Jerry's noncommittal written response, I poked him on the phone a couple of times and he promised to have Bart Enoch contact me to outline a proposed connection. After two weeks went by without my hearing from Bart, I called Jerry again. He acknowledged that the "had not gotten around to that" and said that he would put Bart in touch with me right away. That was last Monday. I still haven't heard from Bart and Jerry is in Italy. Needless to say, I smell a flimflam coming. I can still regurgitate the text of your mountain bike proposal from last year, but if we end up in a floor fight, most likely nothing will be adopted, which is just the way they would like it. Incidentally, I heard an odd rule interpretation from a rider this morning that he attributed to Andy B. (I put in a call to Andy but haven't heard from him yet.) This rider, who is being suspended for riding in the outlaw Iditabike race, said that he will simply ride NORBA races during the suspension period. He says that Andy told him that is OK. He said that he has both USCF and NORBA licenses. I wonder what Andy is saying to people who have just a USCF license and use it in both kinds of events. In any case, we should close this apparent loophole, I believe. After all, if we recognize USPRO's suspensions, should we not reciprocate for other segments of our own organization? Have a good trip and try to avoid getting FIACed!

PDheader:1989-07-07 19:46:00-07:00 ee7eb94fb420c589a562177a8ef9ad68 ∂07-Jul-89 1946 roadman@Portia.stanford.edu re: Recumbent Racing Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 89 19:46:03 PDT Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA17503; Fri, 7 Jul 89 19:43:26 PDT Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 19:43:26 PDT From: arthur walker <roadman@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8907080243.AA17503@Portia.stanford.edu> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, roadman@PORTIA.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Recumbent Racing

there's almost not room for a nearly supine or prone rider and unavoidable protrusions in two meters! At least, not for riders over 1.8 meters tall. I'll probably never do that stuff. I would pilot an airborne though, and for durations over 3 hours I could be a serious candidate. art

PDheader:1989-07-19 22:32:00-07:00 6ef13e85b7a371e17ad4b9ed48520e9b ∂19-Jul-89 2232 LES re: I'm back To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 19 Jul 89 23:00:45 CDT.]

Sounds great. Welcome back. I'm still thrashing away at compiling the BoD agenda, which will again be relatively gigantic. Got a whole bunch of screwed-up proposals from the staff in the last few days, which I am putting on the agenda together with abusive comments. The worst ones seem to have come from Jerry. I have put in three sepearate proposals that (1) define the NORBA board as a USCF Special Committee, (2) require that NORBA recognize USCF suspensions, and (3) require that NORBA recognize USCF licenses (which ought to raise some hackles). As I mentioned earlier, I can include the off-road rules that you put together last year if you wish, but I know that it will be an uphill fight to get them accepted inasmuch as the existing NORBA "Board of Trustees" has been given autonomy and likes it that way.

PDheader:1989-07-20 07:40:00-07:00 c1048090b9fcf75048b309126cc7d236 ∂20-Jul-89 0740 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: I'm back Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 89 07:40:48 PDT Received: from gsun3.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13473; Thu, 20 Jul 89 09:39:56 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 09:41:23 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8907201441.AA06160@gsun3.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun3.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 20 Jul 89 09:41:23 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: I'm back

Well, I would just as soon (if it isn't too much hassle) that you did include the proposed regulations. I know what you mean about hassles, but it's high time "they" get serious.

PDheader:1989-07-20 11:33:00-07:00 e87e5f7810883c2019d7a5f2473fa0e0 ∂20-Jul-89 1133 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu legeslation Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 89 11:33:45 PDT Received: from jade.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05913; Thu, 20 Jul 89 11:31:35 PDT Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA09495; Thu, 20 Jul 89 11:33:39 PDT Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA09078; Thu, 20 Jul 89 11:32:43 PDT Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 11:32:43 PDT From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8907201832.AA09078@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: legeslation Hey Les, There were a couple of problems discussed at the last NCNCA meeting that need some discussion at the Fed level. First is the problem with cat. 3 riders in the district championships. I suppose this problem is unique to our district and maybe CO but it does seem serious enough to warrant a possible rule change. From what I understand the dist. reps. have no authority to restrict the sr. men's RR to cat. 1 & 2 riders. If the rules could be changed to allow the district rep. to restrict access (in the case of large field sizes at least) this would probably prevent the problems we had at Ft. Ord with some VERY inexperienced riders, none of whom qualified for Nationals as far as I know. The second problem has to do with littering during races. Last week at the Cascade Cycling Classic I could not believe the PowerBar wrappers and other trash riders were just throwing onto the road! This behavior could have a seriously negative impact on cycling's public image. I talked with Dean, the chief official at Cascade and before the next stage he asked that riders not litter. I was amazed to see only one rider tossing a PowerBar wrapper the whole race and I told him what I thought about it. Riders were even passing warm-up newspapers to the official's motorcycle. I wonder if it would be possible to legislate some kind of penalty for littering during races? Banana peels and small amounts of paper might be exempted (being biodegradable) but tossing plastics and tin foil should be illegal as it is by state and (I believe) federal law. Cheers, Roger P.S. Do you know who is running for the BOD this term?

PDheader:1989-07-20 12:26:00-07:00 1c8eed53d2d980165cc433e76fb1432c ∂20-Jul-89 1226 LES re: legeslation To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 20 Jul 89 11:32:43 PDT.]

The idea of restricting district championships to Cat. 1 & 2 is a good one, but it would have to be applied uniformly (i.e. in all districts). I'll add it to the agenda, but I suspect that there may be resistence from people in smaller districts, who don't have enough 1s and 2s to hold a race. An explicit ban on littering also sounds good to me; I'll add it. I ran for the Board this year, as did John Tarbert, and we both got elected. Because of a screw-up in the election procedures, the staff tried to stick John with a one year term instead of two, even though he got more votes than Scot Bradley of Washington. I have challenged this bogus decision and hope to get it straightened out soon. -Les

PDheader:1989-07-20 14:00:00-07:00 6c08b330e26fcc480083a5135285ce36 ∂20-Jul-89 1400 marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu re: legeslation Received: from jade.berkeley.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 89 14:00:33 PDT Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA11176; Thu, 20 Jul 89 14:00:25 PDT Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA09820; Thu, 20 Jul 89 13:59:29 PDT Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 13:59:29 PDT From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8907202059.AA09820@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: legeslation Les, Why would a championship category restriction have to be applied uniformly? Couldn't it be left to the discretion of the district rep, prehaps with some guidelines from the USCF as to minimum number of licensed 1/2 riders in the district need to be able to consider a restriction of categories? Thanks, Roger

PDheader:1989-07-20 15:44:00-07:00 14b8f139e991cb7032b62013384dafad ∂20-Jul-89 1544 LES re: legislation To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 20 Jul 89 13:59:29 PDT.]

Roger, You ask: > Why would a championship category restriction have to be applied > uniformly? Because it interacts strongly with the qualification quota system. If Cat. 3 riders in some districts could qualify for the nationals but others couldn't, there would be strong complaints about unfair competition. Those who were excluded could appeal under USCF bylaws and they would almost certainly win. If they didn't, they could appeal to the USOC on the grounds that this scheme violates the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (Federal Public Law 95-606) as well as the U.S. Constitution (equal protection under the law). Other than that, no problem. Cheers, -Les

PDheader:1989-07-23 13:46:00-07:00 3a56f50c5d5d0e6f970000863c38ac40 ∂23-Jul-89 1346 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: Suspension of Racing Privileges? Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jul 89 13:46:05 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04294; Sun, 23 Jul 89 13:43:50 PDT Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.37) id AA23619; Sun, 23 Jul 89 15:46:28 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Jul 89 15:46:28 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 89 15:46:28 CDT Message-Id: <8907232046.AA08651@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA08651; Sun, 23 Jul 89 15:46:28 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Suspension of Racing Privileges? Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <10803@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <3740@portia.Stanford.EDU> <8480128@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

I dislike monopolies of any sort, and think Congress in its enthusiasm for Olympic gold medals may have blown it, but Andy Fitzhugh's complaint misses one point that you made quite clearly: The USCF has no authority, legal or otherwise, over the organizers of the CC. It only has authority over its own voluntary members, due to the contract involved in membership. The USCF took the only action it had the authority to take. The only question is between some action and no action. There is no middle ground. Thank you for taking the time to participate in the net. It's good to have some hard information floating around from time to time. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

PDheader:1989-07-23 13:47:00-07:00 46a60edfc039554bf9aa2cce7487dd66 ∂23-Jul-89 1347 LES Greg LeMond Wins Tour de France Bicycle Race for Second Time To: rec-bicycles@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU

[From Associated Press; posted without permission] a212 1120 23 Jul 89 AM-Tour de France Newspage,0250 PARIS (AP) - Greg LeMond, the only American to win the Tour de France, repeated the feat Sunday by the closest margin ever, capping a comeback from a 1987 gunshot wound that many thought had ended his cycling career. LeMond, 26, of Minneapolis, edged Laurent Fignon of France by eight seconds in the most suspenseful running of the world's premier cycling event. The Tour de France, which began July 1 with nearly 200 riders, is a 2,020-mile race run in stages over mountains and valleys looping through France, Belgium and Luxembourg. LeMond had started the day 50 seconds behind Fignon, which many cycling experts believed an insurmountable deficit. Fignon, who has won the race twice, and LeMond had traded the lead repeatedly the past 17 days. The American won the final stage, a 15-mile time trial from Versailles to Paris, in 26 minutes, 57 seconds. It was the first time LeMond had raced in the Tour de France since he won the event in 1986. He was shot in the chest in a 1987 hunting accident, and shin surgery and an emergency appendectomy forced him to miss the 1988 race. Many thought he would never compete seriously again. The previous closest finish in the 76-year-old race was 38 seconds, when Jan Janssen of the Netherlands beat Herman Van Springel of Belgium in 1968. LeMond receives a $220,000 first prize. AP-NY-07-23-89 1414EDT **********

PDheader:1989-07-23 13:56:00-07:00 7ab22eac19f3f055de79009556ab4b44 ∂23-Jul-89 1356 LES re: Suspension of Racing Privileges? To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun, 23 Jul 89 15:46:28 CDT.]

Thanks -- I'm glad that at least one person understands the real issues. Unfortunately, I seem to have set off the flame throwers again and will not be able to defend myself, since I will be at the USCF Track Nationals in Seattle all this week. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-07-24 13:56:00-07:00 e65693389db61a6598cf052ae3ff457c ∂24-Jul-89 1356 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: Recumbent Racing Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 89 13:56:14 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08780; Mon, 24 Jul 89 13:53:57 PDT Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 15:56:39 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) Posted-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 15:56:39 CDT Message-Id: <8907242056.AA02789@cs.utexas.edu> Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.37) id AA02789; Mon, 24 Jul 89 15:56:39 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Recumbent Racing Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <10441@polya.Stanford.EDU> References: <1403@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

In article <10441@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >Dan Mocsney offers some conjectures on what would happen if the UCI >relaxed its ban on recumbents. I observe that recumbents have always >been legal in general USCF races, though they have been banned in >national championships (not districts) since 1986. In view of this, I >wonder why none of Dan's expectations have come true in this country? > >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 In view of this and LeMond's time trialing, I'll bring up the following: There are now bikes designed for Scott bars. One of the cycling rags had a piece on a couple of them. One of them had a 90 degree seat angle! Doesn't that sort of thing amount to an upside-down recumbent? That is, the body is essentially horizontal. On a recumbent the rider is on his/her back, and on a ``Scottbike'' on his/her front, but it seems to me that the effect is similar. Is there less draft from a rider using Scott bars? I would think there would have to be. I think what I have against recumbents is psychological. When I was a kid there was a 4-wheeled thing called a ``kiddie car'' where the rider sat and messed with pedals attached through a pushrod arrangement to the rear wheels. Big kids rode bikes. A recumbent just looks too much like a kiddie car. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

PDheader:1989-08-16 14:11:00-07:00 0e3dd3f9b11a291aac3e848dd822b1e3 ∂16-Aug-89 1411 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mbarnes@East.Sun.COM Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 2] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Aug 89 14:11:37 PDT Received: from Sun.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA00994; Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:12:07 PDT Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11448; Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:11:53 PDT Received: from East.Sun.COM by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27835; Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:09:45 PDT Received: from sundc.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28281; Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:07:50 EST Received: by sundc.East.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17375; Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:12:10 EDT Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:12:10 EDT From: mbarnes@East.Sun.COM (Mike Barnes - Intelligence Natl Sales Manager Washington DC) Message-Id: <8908162112.AA17375@sundc.East.Sun.COM> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 2] In-Reply-To: your article <11305@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: newstop!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les

I have used several Da Hon bikes for two years. I have a Da Hon III, a Da Hon V and a Da Bike. I purchased Da Bike from Best as it was half the price of my other two bikes. I was very concerned by two aspects of the bike. The first was the brake and the other was the cog that was used on the bike. My Da Hon V was wearing out. I had used it as my primary bike and had about 50000 miles on it. I figured it was probably cheaper to buy the Da Bike at $129 than to fix the Da Hon V which needed a new fork, new derailer, new tires, etc. I took the front brake off of the Da Hon V and replaced the Da Bike's rear wheel assembly which replaced the gear clusters as well. In all fairness, I found that the band brake was sufficient to stop me. I am 190 and 5 foot 11. Is it possible that the brake cable was loose on the rear brake. Best does not adjust anything. Even on my other bikes, I have been able to get good braking with a single brake when I have something in my other hand. The band brake is not effected by rain and freezes the rear wheel on my bike.

PDheader:1989-08-17 01:31:00-07:00 164349083f5e5d5b1b7515ce9b4eb719 ∂17-Aug-89 0131 LES re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 2] To: mbarnes@EAST.SUN.COM [In reply to message sent Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:12:10 EDT.]

Interesting -- the band brake on DaBike that I got would not come anywhere near skidding the tire, and the cable was not loose. As I report later in the letter series, not even the Dahon rim brake will stop the wheel for me.

PDheader:1989-08-17 06:14:00-07:00 f9bd4e06359b43167496a0ad5f269d5d ∂17-Aug-89 0614 mbarnes@East.Sun.COM re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 2] Received: from Sun.COM ([192.9.9.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 89 06:14:16 PDT Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24883; Thu, 17 Aug 89 06:14:49 PDT Received: from East.Sun.COM by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21137; Thu, 17 Aug 89 06:12:56 PDT Received: from sundc.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21802; Thu, 17 Aug 89 09:11:04 EST Received: by sundc.East.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18098; Thu, 17 Aug 89 09:15:24 EDT Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 09:15:24 EDT From: mbarnes@East.Sun.COM (Mike Barnes - Intelligence Natl Sales Manager Washington DC) Message-Id: <8908171315.AA18098@sundc.East.Sun.COM> To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 2]

I went home and looked at the Da Bike yesterday. As I stated, I weigh about 190. I have weighed as much as 205. When I first go the Da Bike, the tires were not inflated, the derailer was not adjusted, the seat was not tight and the brakes were not adjusted. I have worked on other bikes so I adjusted everything. Once adjusted, I was found that my major concern was the gearing rather than the brakes. I can make the bike stop very quickly. I put a front brake on anyway. I replaced the free wheel witht he Da Hon V wheel to improve the gearing. The Da Bike now has about 1500 miles on it. I do not ride it anymore. I let an exchange student from Thailand who weighs about 105 ride it. I usually do not buy any bikes from dept. stores as they can not make them safe. I bought the Da Bike because it was so inexpensive. My feeling is that any bike that is not properly set up is unsafe.

PDheader:1989-08-17 11:58:00-07:00 569b621e5161884a62727e532a7cfa8a ∂17-Aug-89 1158 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:capmkt!bandy@uunet.UU.NET Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 4] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 89 11:58:44 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA04606; Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:58:49 PDT Received: from capmkt.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA04022; Thu, 17 Aug 89 14:58:46 -0400 From: capmkt!bandy@uunet.uu.net Received: from cody.capmkt.com for les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU@uunet

by capmkt.com (3.2/SMI-3.2/CMT-1.4main) id AA10757; Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:46:01 PDT Received: by cody.capmkt.com (3.2/SMI-3.2/CMT-1.3sub) id AA06922; Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:45:57 PDT Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:45:57 PDT Message-Id: <8908171845.AA06922@cody.capmkt.com> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 4] Newsgroups: rec.bicycles References: <11338@polya.Stanford.EDU> In rec.bicycles you write: >[The above letter was mailed on 8/14/89. If Dahon accepts my invitation, >I will post the time and place of the showdown, in case any S.F. Bay area >people would like to kibitz.] I, for one, would like to know the where and when. I'm 6'1", 14 stone [196lbs] and while I don't have a problem with my knees bonking the handlebars [33" inseam trowsers], I do feel all squunched up when I ride my "daikon" bike [two rim-brake model]. I had a problem a while back when I was forced into a pot-hole in San Francisco. It bent up the front frame in the place where the steering column goes through. After going through some round-and-round with the bike shop that sold it to me, they finally told DaHon that I had gone to China and come back and my bike still wasn't fixed so DaHon just sent me a new one, which was very nice of them. If the shop had said "he hit a pothole and the frame bent up", DaHon could have said "well, he had an accident - our 1yr frame warrantee doesn't cover that". In summary, you should be careful of potholes and be aware that the frame is a bit soft for my tastes. What I really want is an Infinity recumbent, but.... >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Are the powers-that-be still planning on decommisioning SAIL this fall? andy

PDheader:1989-08-17 12:36:00-07:00 d8a5146129bf538b40f5b7202cab7b91 ∂17-Aug-89 1236 LES re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 4] To: capmkt!bandy@UUNET.UU.NET [In reply to message sent Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:45:57 PDT.]

OK, I'll let you know when. With respect to SAIL, it has received a stay of execution until at least early next year. The plan to dismantle the Computer Science Department's computer facilities group is going ahead, however, and takes effect at the end of this month. -Les

PDheader:1989-08-18 00:06:00-07:00 cb7080afbeb816d44ab31808f4c31290 ∂18-Aug-89 0006 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu uscfdea Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 89 00:06:47 PDT Received: from jade.berkeley.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA06033; Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:07:16 PDT Received: from qal.QAL.Berkeley.EDU

by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.22) id AA04761; Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:06:12 PDT Received: by qal.qal.berkeley.edu (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.9) id AA15085; Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:05:35 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:05:35 PDT From: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@jade.berkeley.edu Message-Id: <8908180705.AA15085@qal.qal.berkeley.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: uscfdea Thanks Les, for a voice of sanity and perspective in the sport / drug wars. Who though, are the moralists in the BOD and the administration who are taking the hard line without regards for the future of the athletes or the sport? We never seem to see the minutes of the BOD meetings or who voted which way. Shouldn't voting practices and discussions be publicized, say in CUSA? Cheers, Roger

PDheader:1989-08-18 00:35:00-07:00 4f90c7fdc3e67bd1952915b15997cb71 ∂18-Aug-89 0035 jordan@bosco.Berkeley.EDU Re: Ethics of performance enhancers Received: from cartan.berkeley.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 89 00:35:35 PDT Received: from jell-o.Berkeley.EDU by cartan.berkeley.edu (5.61/1.30) id AA07248; Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:36:13 PDT Received: by jell-o (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3.7MXw) id AA28382; Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:33:37 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:33:37 PDT From: jordan@bosco.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <8908180733.AA28382@jell-o> To: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu Subject: Re: Ethics of performance enhancers

Disclaimer: I have never rode my bike more than about 3 miles at a time, much less entered in a race. --- With that out of the way, it seems to me that a good reason for regulating "substances" is so that we don't end up with a bunch of crippled, miserable (or whatever. I'm not a doctor... but I play one on TV...) retired athletes. If we let athletes choose whether or not to use "substances" which will help their performance in the short run, but ruin their health in the long run, all the people that win races and get money and endorsements will be the "substance" users... but they'll have traded "good health" for it. Is this the decision we want bicyclers to have to make? Whether to earn much money and "kill" themselves, or to be healthy but "poor"(er)? (or less famous) Just my thoughts... -Jordan Lampe jordan@math.berkeley.edu

PDheader:1989-08-18 03:02:00-07:00 fb93b0a1036fb6d8f8dfcfa01e9915ed ∂18-Aug-89 0302 LES re: uscfdea To: marquis%QAL.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:05:35 PDT.]

I'm afraid that the current Board is nearly all moralists and especially so is the Executive Director. He also proposed to test the USCF staff for prohibited substances (the USCF list), even though that list has nothing to do with office performance. I was eventually able to talk him out of it with a combination of logic and the threat that I would call in the ACLU. I agree that the positions of Board members should be made known to the extent that they are recorded. The minutes used to be widely distributed, but that practice seems to have ended. In any case, indivividual votes are recorded only when there is a roll call vote, which happens only when some troublemaker (such as me) wants to force them to be "on the record." It is interesting how often the roll call vote differs substantially from the hand vote on the same issue. Writing articles about Board actions for CUSA would certainly be a good idea in principle, but there are horrendous political issues, given that it is a "house organ." I would rather see VeloNews or some other independent journal take on the task, so that those in power could not directly control the process. -Les

PDheader:1989-08-18 03:17:00-07:00 011cc57ceafe96585ed4ea3283fc2f90 ∂18-Aug-89 0317 LES re: Re: Ethics of performance enhancers To: jordan@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:33:37 PDT.]

You are a bit more paternalistic than I. I would prefer to let the market decide which kind of competitions should exist rather than forcing people to do the "right" thing. Of course, I have a fairly radical view about drugs in general -- that the emphasis should be on information, not regulation. If heroin, cocaine, etc. were available to adults at local drug stores at reasonable prices (i.e. reasonable relative to the cost of manufacturing) without prescription, I doubt that we would have any more addicts than we do now and the cost of their habits (and hence the crime rate) would be substantially reduced. I believe that I am not at risk of becoming an addict; you probably feel the same way, as do most people. Yes, I know that it is those other people that we have to worry about (!). -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-08-19 00:27:00-07:00 443bc6f1bed1f647b495a02185ae0967 ∂19-Aug-89 0027 LES re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 4] To: capmkt!bandy@UUNET.UU.NET

I received a telephone call this afternoon from Henry Hon of Dahon accepting my challenge. In case you would like to come, the time and place are to be as follows. Time: Tuesday, August 22 at 1:00 PM Place: Dahon California, Inc. 2949 Whipple Road Union City, CA Cheers, -Les

PDheader:1989-08-19 15:00:00-07:00 6a575ac6e39c2f9a2915c51bce46a62e ∂19-Aug-89 1500 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:roadman@Portia.stanford.edu Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 89 15:00:17 PDT Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA11124; Sat, 19 Aug 89 15:00:42 PDT Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.61/25-eef) id AA00258; Sat, 19 Aug 89 14:58:11 -0700 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 14:58:11 -0700 From: arthur walker <roadman@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8908192158.AA00258@Portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] In-Reply-To: your article <11401@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: portia!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les

They're soaking the tires in some hardener now, and oiling their parking lot. Good luck, and lean back! art walker

PDheader:1989-08-20 17:09:00-07:00 03a4de84f8230cd78bc8c4a5f9b79de5 ∂20-Aug-89 1709 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu I'm back (in 2 ways) Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 89 17:09:21 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA07546; Sun, 20 Aug 89 19:08:27 CDT Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 19:10:03 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8908210010.AA04747@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 20 Aug 89 19:10:03 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: I'm back (in 2 ways)

Hi, I'm back from France and the FIAC meetings including part of the World Track Championships. I can report the following: I was reelected to the FIAC Executive Committee for another 4 year term. Hooray. The election was effectively in the hands of the Arabian/African coalition, and damned be whomever was out of favor with them. 2 sitting members were not reeelcted for reasons which I cannot fully understand. Anyway either you got 55 or more votes (and made it or you got 18 or fewer votes, and good-bye). I had 58 out of a possible 60. (There was one at 60 and maybe 2 at 59.) When I got back there was a note that you had called, I'll ring you up later or when I'm less foggy. Or was it it a passing fancy? Phil

PDheader:1989-08-20 17:15:00-07:00 55c3fad6e162d5eb91104ff765d70a9f ∂20-Aug-89 1715 LES re: I'm back (in 2 ways) To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun, 20 Aug 89 19:10:03 CDT.]

Congratulations! Another 4 years of boondoggles; er, junkets! Yes, I would like to discuss the medical control regulations whenever you are up to it, specifically the escape clause in Rule 5A2, which doesn't seem to work in practice (i.e. with Catlin).

PDheader:1989-08-21 08:53:00-07:00 02d16f839bbbb46ccfb537082451e6c5 ∂21-Aug-89 0853 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:tran@Portia.stanford.edu Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 89 08:53:16 PDT Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA14630; Mon, 21 Aug 89 08:53:42 PDT Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.61/25-eef) id AA29973; Mon, 21 Aug 89 08:51:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 08:51:13 -0700 From: Hy Tran <tran@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8908211551.AA29973@Portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <11401@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Stanford University Cc:

In article <11401@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >I received a telephone call this afternoon from Henry Hon of Dahon >accepting my challenge. In case any S.F.B.A. folks would like to >watch me lose $100 (or possibly win a like amount), feel free to show >up at the showdown: > >Time: Tuesday, August 22 at 1:00 PM >Place: Dahon California, Inc. > 2949 Whipple Road > Union City, CA Are you riding over? Which hill would you like to challenge them on? Say, Redwood Gulch? Or, being on the East Bay, how about Sierra Rd? Old Calaveras is also pretty close. If you're riding over, I'd like to ride with you. >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Hy Tran tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu

PDheader:1989-08-21 11:31:00-07:00 c58925f856faecfa6020491a4aa96c71 ∂21-Aug-89 1131 LES re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] To: tran@PORTIA.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 21 Aug 89 08:51:13 -0700.]

Well, I have to buy a new DaBike as part of this project, so I guess that I have to drive. You are welcome to come along if you wish. With respect to the test site, the California Vehicle Code specifies flat, dry pavement, so I plan to use Dahon's parking lot, after checking for oil. If they manage to pass the test (which I would find quite surprising), I would like to invite Hanry Hon to take it down a steep hill nearby, so if you have any suggestions along that line I would be interested. -Les

PDheader:1989-08-21 13:59:00-07:00 b3cfa200256080b37aafdd841e05049b ∂21-Aug-89 1359 tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Received: from krakatoa.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 89 13:59:41 PDT Received: by krakatoa.stanford.edu; Mon, 21 Aug 89 13:59:49 PDT Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 13:59:49 PDT From: Hy Tran <tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu> Subject: re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] To: LES@sail.stanford.edu

Les, I'd love to come along, but if you're driving, I'd prefer to hitch a ride. The parking lot, if it's asphalt, would be a good test. Concrete surfaces (and concrete paths and roadways) offer surprisingly poor traction, making it easy to skid (I know, I've got the rad (oops, road) rash to prove it). As for hills, Union City is near Palomares, which has some interesting grades (although nothing like Redwood Gulch). Sierra Rd is in the Fremont/Milpitas area; it's a residential street, with what looks like a pitch straight up (or down) as you enter the neighborhood. Going up Sierra or down (intersection of Sierra and Piedmont) would be a good (albeit dangerous) test. Seven Hills in Castro Valley also has some steep downhills going into a stop sign. (Oh, and hitching a ride meant hitching a ride with you). Hy

PDheader:1989-08-21 14:08:00-07:00 e02a0db6dce42db57109723e840957a4 ∂21-Aug-89 1408 tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Received: from krakatoa.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 89 14:08:46 PDT Received: by krakatoa.stanford.edu; Mon, 21 Aug 89 14:08:56 PDT Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 14:08:56 PDT From: Hy Tran <tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu> Subject: re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] To: LES@sail.stanford.edu

On campus is a fine place of my choosing. If you're on campus, I can walk over to your office. If you're starting out from home, any convenient spot on campus (say, the oval?). I'll bring my camera. Hy

PDheader:1989-08-21 19:06:00-07:00 52ae2aa062ee8102f97e092f535ab31f ∂21-Aug-89 1906 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 89 19:05:55 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com (research.att.com) by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA16129; Mon, 21 Aug 89 19:06:19 PDT Message-Id: <8908220206.AA16129@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> From: druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 12:48 MDT To: les@att.att.com Subject: Re: DaBike is unsafe [Part 5] News-Path: drutx!mtgzz!mtgzy!mtuxo!att!dptg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les References: <11401@polya.Stanford.EDU>

Go Get `em, Les. Good luck and may the force(inertia, that is) be with you! Bruce

PDheader:1989-08-22 14:18:00-07:00 7a95f494cfe2f6709b6bf54baffde308 ∂22-Aug-89 1418 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:polly@glacier.Stanford.EDU questions about an upcoming race Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 89 14:18:21 PDT Received: from glacier.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA18453; Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:18:43 PDT Received: by glacier.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C) id AA14977; Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:21:50 PDT Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:21:50 PDT From: polly@glacier.stanford.edu (Polly Siegel) Message-Id: <8908222121.AA14977@glacier.Stanford.EDU> To: les@gang-of-four.Stanford.EDU Subject: questions about an upcoming race

Les, Since you're the resident USCF person, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me or point me to the right person to ask. I'm trying to find out about the upcoming Collegiate Track Nationals - or at least the WCCC Track Championships. From the August NCNcA newsletter I found that they're on Sept 30 at Hellyer. This is, however, the only information I've been able to find. I need to know: how to sign up (who to sign up with), if eligibility is based on the 1988-1989 school year or the 1989-1990 school year, what races there are, etc. Any help you can give me would be most appreciated! thanks! Polly Siegel Center for Integrated Systems Stanford

PDheader:1989-08-23 14:29:00-07:00 28421fb127bc91c7d11162877ddbd159 ∂23-Aug-89 1429 LES re: questions about an upcoming race To: polly@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:21:50 PDT.]

According to Lee Maniscalco, that event is actually the Western Collegiate Conference Cycling Championships and the date has been changed to Sept. 16. The organizer is Mike Prime of Cal. Cycling, phone 415 644-0485. -Les

PDheader:1989-08-24 11:14:00-07:00 74e772e8367f4ce7f8de8d60d30f4000 ∂24-Aug-89 1114 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Medical regulations Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Aug 89 11:14:32 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA10910; Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:13:36 CDT Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:14:50 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:14:50 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Medical regulations Message-Id: <Q4F43850@odin>

Having a further thought, which your ACLU mind may not like. Is there any possiblity to recast the burden of proof that the substance abuse was consistent with declared and normal usage of a prohibited product? That is instead of putting the onus on our testing laboratory, require that that the athlete who appeals the finding, obtain expert testimony (from say a professional pharmacologist (or whatever)) that the levels the laboratory found, and the other chemicals detected, correspond with the use of an over-the-counter or prescribed medication which the athlete predeclared, and with the normal dosage for the substance in question. Just a thought, anyway.

PDheader:1989-08-24 11:15:00-07:00 dd9d099f98ffdee718cef53cc4b584e5 ∂24-Aug-89 1115 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Re: DaBike is fairly safe [Part 6] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Aug 89 11:15:02 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com (research.att.com) by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA24338; Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:15:19 PDT Message-Id: <8908241815.AA24338@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> From: druwy!bhilden@att.att.com Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:55 MDT To: les@att.att.com Subject: Re: DaBike is fairly safe [Part 6] News-Path: drutx!mtgzz!mtgzy!mtuxo!att!dptg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les References: <11481@polya.Stanford.EDU>

That's OK. Its great to see somebody sticking up for what they believe (and really can prove, but maybe not in a parking lot). Hat's off, big guy, Bruce ps - the $100 you lost is probably tax deductible!

PDheader:1989-08-24 15:37:00-07:00 0961d9d587bdbe5da09c58b1e14ef2cb ∂24-Aug-89 1537 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@asuvax.eas.asu.edu:gtephx!corfmanr@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Racing in Europe Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Aug 89 15:37:51 PDT Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (handies.ucar.edu) by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA24982; Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:38:13 PDT Received: from ASUVAX.EAS.ASU.EDU by ncar.UCAR.EDU (5.61/1.00.UUCP-MOD.8-11-85) id AA28923; Thu, 24 Aug 89 16:38:27 MDT Received: by asuvax.eas.asu.edu (5.60/1.3) id AA01987; Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:40:14 MST Received: by gtephx.com (4.12/5.17) id AA04228; Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:06:26 mst Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:06:26 mst From: asuvax!gtephx!corfmanr@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Russ Corfman) Message-Id: <8908241806.AA04228@gtephx.com> To: Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les@ncar.ucar.edu Subject: Racing in Europe News-Path: gtephx!hrc!zardoz!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les

Russell Corfman 4033 W. Avenida Del Sol Glendale, AZ 85310 (602) 582-3796 Les, I am currently knocking around the idea of going to Italy and/or France to race for about a month next summer. I'm not too worried about the European side of things. My coach is Italian and has a lot of contacts in Italy. Also, another member of my club is French and his father is President of some French cycling (racing) club. My concern is the USCF side of things. Do you know who I need to get in contact with to get permission from the USCF to race in Europe? Is this even necessary? What are the processes involved and how much time should I allow to get them completed? If you can answer any of these questions, give any suggestions, or names of people with the USCF to get in touch with it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Russell Corfman

PDheader:1989-08-24 17:57:00-07:00 c313febb8217110dbf09b205539f0163 ∂24-Aug-89 1757 LES re: Medical regulations To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:14:50 CDT.]

I see several problems with this idea. 1. It would mean that the lab would have to do quantitative analysis on positives, which they do not normally do now. We should expect that they would want to be paid more, assuming that they know how to do it. 2. If you invite the appellant to bring in an "expert," we will inevitably get a battle of experts, with the jury sitting in the middle and scratching their heads, or whatever part of their anatomy seems appropriate. 3. Establishing what is a "normal" or "abnormal" dose for any given medication would be hard enough if it were done in advance, but doing it after someone has tested positive is particularly messy. 4. Even if you determine what is a normal dose for a given substance, proving the relationship between dosage and the amount present in urine is also rather messy, given natural variations in metabolism and environmental factors.

PDheader:1989-08-24 18:36:00-07:00 7be396fa8ac20f48a192b0d808953b6e ∂24-Aug-89 1836 LES re: Racing in Europe To: asuvax!gtephx!corfmanr@ncar.UCAR.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:06:26 mst.]

Russell, You do need an international license in order to race outside the U.S. If you don't have one already, you have to send the USCF office some passport photos and (probably) pay them a license replacement fee ($10) to get one issued. You do not need anyone's permission to race elsewhere -- just do it. Of course, you should exercise the same care as you would here about entering only events that are sanctioned by a body affiliated with UCI. The penalty for entering an "outlaw" race outside the U.S. is a 1 year suspension (vs. 30 days for domestic outlaw events). Good Luck! Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-09-02 17:03:00-07:00 11541d0ec5586fe9a6d8b954eeba0eb7 ∂02-Sep-89 1703 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:tran@Portia.stanford.edu Re: UCI news Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 89 17:03:32 PDT Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA02360; Sat, 2 Sep 89 17:03:43 PDT Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.61/25-eef) id AA15470; Sat, 2 Sep 89 17:01:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 17:01:35 -0700 From: Hy Tran <tran@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8909030001.AA15470@Portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: UCI news Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <11636@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Stanford University Cc:

In article <11636@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >..... >The stodgy old UCI has just passed a rule permitting colored shorts to >be used in competition. (I succeeded in getting the stodgy old USCF >Board to accept colored shorts just last year, after an eight year >struggle. I will try again this year to blow away the white socks >rule, for the umpteenth time.) >....... >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 >Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. >UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Les, Are you serious about the colored shorts? (I suppose you are). (And the white socks too). What if you don't wear socks? Is that OK? How'bout colored tights, or shorts with black & colored panels? Any rationale behind these rules? Or is there some rule about "the racer's outfit must be esthetically pleasing to the judges. If you don't want to submit to the whims of the judges, black shorts are considered esthetic":? I suppose there can be (or must be) some rule that team members (in team races) ought to wear similar jerseys, though distinct from other teams competing. Hy tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu

PDheader:1989-09-02 21:57:00-07:00 8932a94130a0dded46e69d2d5c000741 ∂02-Sep-89 2157 LES re: UCI news To: tran@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat, 2 Sep 89 17:01:35 -0700.]

Hy, You said: > Are you serious about the colored shorts? (I suppose you are). (And > the white socks too). Quite right. These are rules that go back 80 years or so. > What if you don't wear socks? Is that OK? Yes, that has been OK in the U.S. since I got the rule amended in 1984. Before that (and still in the Olympics and most other cycling events elsewhere) all riders were required to wear white socks in road events. > How'bout colored tights, or shorts with black & colored panels? Colored panels up to 9 cm. wide have been permitted only since 1982. Otherwise, shorts have been required to be black only since time immemorial. > Any rationale behind these rules? As I recall, black shorts were introduced by an Italian Cardinal on the occasion of some big shot's death. No rationale whatever, other than the practical fact that black doesn't show dirt and grease as much as other colors. > Or is there some rule about "the racer's outfit must be esthetically > pleasing to the judges. If you don't want to submit to the whims of the > judges, black shorts are considered esthetic":? No such rule, though there is a rule that the uniform must be "neat and clean at least at the beginning of the race." (I wrote that too.) > I suppose there can be (or must be) some rule that team members (in team > races) ought to wear similar jerseys, though distinct from other teams > competing. There is a rule, which I introduced around 1981, that requires Category 1 and 2 riders from the same club to wear identifiably similar uniforms when competing in a massed start event. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1989-09-12 12:55:00-07:00 e6bc49c2a72e9375131d3838eb6ce851 ∂12-Sep-89 1255 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:dvnspc1!efb@PRC.Unisys.COM Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 1] Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 89 12:55:48 PDT Received: from burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA03680; Tue, 12 Sep 89 12:55:44 PDT Received: from dvnspc1.UUCP by burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM (5.61/Domain/jpb/2.9) id AA17292; Tue, 12 Sep 89 15:56:25 -0400 Received: by dvnspc1.DEV.UNISYS.COM (smail2.5) id AA11274; 12 Sep 89 15:56:47 EDT (Tue) To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 1] In-Reply-To: your article <11732@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: burdvax!udel!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les Message-Id: <8909121556.AA11274@dvnspc1.DEV.UNISYS.COM> Date: 12 Sep 89 15:56:47 EDT (Tue) From: efb@dvnspc1.DEV.UNISYS.COM (Ed Bacon)

> [This is a rather long account of a political struggle. > > There were no helmets of the type Friskel described at that time other > than those designed for motorcycle use, which were much too cumbersone for > cycling. Bell did begin making such helmets a few years later, but they > were not accepted by most bike racers. In fact, by the late '70s, the > only national-level rider who consistently wore a safe helmet was Colorado > rider Bob Cook. It was tragically ironic that he died of cancer shortly ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ > thereafter. > I first met Bob in 1979. We would talk about complex analysis on easy train- ing rides. He was one of the many facinating personalities I remember from competitive cycling. I also remember a letter to Velo-News after Bob crashed in the '79 Zinger. It claimed that he would not have crashed, if he had not been wearing a hard shell helmet. The letter was a shining example of the twisted thinking a person goes through to hold onto traditions or values. Les, I am sorry that you are sometimes attacked for your position on the USCF BOD. But I am glad that there is champion for change in the traditions and values in competitive cycling regarding helmets. For a time I never trained with a helmet, but that evolved to sometimes trained with a helmet. I got tired of the pro-helmet crowd badgering me. I once told a Rodale staffer that "I would never wear a helmet, because my hair looked too good in the breeze." She did not hear the sarcasm, but did stop lecturing me. The days of diving into a corner with a bunch of 18 year olds have ended. But now I NEVER ride without a hard shell helmet. My values have changed probably more than I realize. The accidents involving Allen Kingsberry and Joclyn Lovell made me realize that I did not have as much control of the rode to be completely safe. I also lived with a woman who worked at a spinal chord injury and head trauma rehab center. She would not let me leave the house without a helmet. Giro's sponsorship places more helmets in the pro peloton, so tradition will also change. Regards, Ed.

PDheader:1989-09-17 00:07:00-07:00 5c23ae1afc1d5252afed611602e1b9c5 ∂17-Sep-89 0007 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:chip@hpclisp.HP.COM Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 3]: something to hang a hat on Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 89 00:06:55 PDT Received: from sde.hp.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.0/25-eef) id AA16502; Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:01:38 PDT Received: from [15.0.104.171] by hp-sde.sde.hp.com with SMTP (15.7/SES42.42) id AA06698; Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:02:14 pdt Message-Id: <8909142102.AA06698@sde.hp.com> Received: by hpclisp; Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:00:26 pdt Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:00:26 pdt From: Chip Chapin <chip@hpclisp.HP.COM> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 3]: something to hang a hat on Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: article <11772@polya.Stanford.EDU> of Wed, 13 Sep 89 19:18:23 GMT

Hi Les, Just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying these. Thanks for writing and posting them. Just don't call me "Mr. Chapin", ok? :-) :-) :-). Chip -------------------------------------------------------------------- Chip Chapin, HP California Language Lab (HP/CBO/NSS/CSG/DLD/LMO/CLL) uucp: ... {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax} !hplabs!hpda!chip or ... uunet!hp-sde!hpda!chip Internet: chip%hpda@hplabs.hp.com or chip%hpda@hp-sde.hp.com HPDesk: chip (hpda) /HPUNIX/UX USMail: MS47LZ; 19420 Homestead Ave; Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408/447-5735 Fax: 408/973-8455 HPTelnet: 1-447-5735 --------------------------------------------------------------------

PDheader:1989-09-18 23:31:00-07:00 694810ae693091acfd09398652dd0c34 ∂18-Sep-89 2331 sham@arizona.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 1] Received: from megaron.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Sep 89 23:31:49 PDT Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 23:32:43 MST From: "Shamim Zvonko Mohamed" <sham@arizona.edu> Message-Id: <8909190632.AA01710@megaron.arizona.edu> Received: by megaron.arizona.edu (5.59-1.7/15) id AA01710; Mon, 18 Sep 89 23:32:43 MST To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 1] Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <11732@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Cc:

In article <11732@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >This was a very foresighted statement, which unfortunately was ignored >by the officers of the League. Yes, I know you mean farsighted! >were not accepted by most bike racers. In fact, by the late '70s, the >only national-level rider who consistently wore a safe helmet was Colorado >rider Bob Cook. It was tragically ironic that he died of cancer shortly >thereafter. Didn't it once happen that in '78 (World Champs?) Bob Cook raced with a hairnet because his coach suggested that unless he looked like a European cyclist he'd never be accepted as a serious rider? (Bob Cook went to school at the U of Arizona...) -s -- Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,allegra,cmcl2...}!arizona!sham / sham@arizona.edu "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."

PDheader:1989-09-19 00:06:00-07:00 a342f6f0ae7dc503635b5f2a2e8d27cb ∂19-Sep-89 0006 LES re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 1] To: sham@ARIZONA.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 18 Sep 89 23:32:43 MST.]

You say: > Yes, I know you mean farsighted! No, I meant foresighted. Please consult the dictionary if you don't understand. I don't know if Bob Cook ever wore a hairnet, but I never saw him in anything but a Bell helmet. That included several Red Zinger/Coors races where everyone else was wearing hairnets. -Les

PDheader:1989-09-19 10:51:00-07:00 7ac2f24405ed4a4522a7d864379ea482 ∂19-Sep-89 1051 sham@arizona.edu foresight and farsight Received: from megaron.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 89 10:51:10 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 10:52:03 MST From: "Shamim Zvonko Mohamed" <sham@arizona.edu> Message-Id: <8909191752.AA08312@megaron.arizona.edu> Received: by megaron.arizona.edu (5.59-1.7/15) id AA08312; Tue, 19 Sep 89 10:52:03 MST To: les@sail.Stanford.EDU Subject: foresight and farsight

You're quite correct; my apologies. For some reason I was thinking of "short- sighted." -s -- Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,allegra,cmcl2...}!arizona!sham / sham@arizona.edu "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."

PDheader:1989-09-19 15:37:00-07:00 5971d7d5c5c11a070d2310fb3e20e5de ∂19-Sep-89 1537 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 4]: getting antsy over ANSI Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 89 15:37:13 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA17885; Tue, 19 Sep 89 15:37:02 -0700 Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.42) id AA08518; Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:37:59 CDT Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:38:24 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:38:24 CDT Message-Id: <8909192238.AA22964@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA22964; Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:38:24 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 4]: getting antsy over ANSI Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <11841@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

``Anecdotes are poor substitutes for conversation.'' -- Edsger W. Dijkstra Still, Saturday I got my money's worth and more out of my helmet. Being an impoverished grad student, and having a family history of arthritic necks, I decided on the cheapest all-foam helmet I could get and ordered one from Performance. That was June of 1988. By last Saturday it was getting a little smelly, since I had worn it through all sorts of Texas weather, including (shudder) summer. Frankly, I was a lot cooler before I started wearing it. Saturday I lost control going around a curve at the bottom of a hill. I hit on my right side and slid in a long diagonal across the road. Severe road rash on right hip, bad rash on right elbow and calf, skinned knee, minor abrasion on right ribcage and left hip. Poison ivy from the ditch where I ended up. The helmet broke into five pieces, which were all contained by the lycra cover and remained on my head when I came to rest. My head was not scratched and I was not so much as dizzy. My wire-rim glasses were intact, although they came off at the end. If the fragments had scattered, I would at least have been scratched sliding through the underbrush. The helmet did exactly what it was supposed to do. Oh yes. I got a slight stiff neck, which has now (Tuesday) gone away. Despite my earlier posting, which caused quite a stir, I'm not sueing anyone. The helmet may have saved my life, and my needs are being met by insurance. My own suspicion is that the stiff neck came from the shock of my helmetted head hitting the pavement, and not any sticking effect. Performance is mailing me a new helmet, free. -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

PDheader:1989-09-19 16:14:00-07:00 7b1548b5cb0b22eaae969bb9214452dc ∂19-Sep-89 1614 halpin%artic.decnet@alexandria-emh2.army.mil Comments on USCF Board legislative proposals Received: from alexandria-emh2.army.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 89 16:14:30 PDT Date: 19 Sep 89 19:05:00 EDT From: "ARTIC::HALPIN" <halpin%artic.decnet@alexandria-emh2.army.mil> Subject: Comments on USCF Board legislative proposals To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu>

The following provides you with my comments on the proposals to be considered by the Board Sept. 24. Most are to point out typos or other minor problems; I have also made some comments for your consideration. I realize that these would have been of more value if sent earlier; my apologies. 1. p 3, item [B2b], Part 3: Now reads ...shall be aubmitted...; should read ...should be submitted... 2. p 6, item [B6b] No problem with the change as stated. But shouldn't there be something done about those who never compete in a race with more than 10 other racers and therefore are automatically "in the top 10"... 3. p 6, item [B7] GOOD! But how about using a carrot as well as a stick? For example, Federation reimbursement of travel expenses for travel to one training seminar per year (I have a 275 mile drive to get to the 9:00 am seminar, usually on snowy, icy roads...) 4. p 9, item [B9b] Type in para (b) dealing with Cat B races: the second $10,000 should be $20,000 (?) 5. p 15, item {B25b] Reorder last sentence in the bracketed comment so that it reads: [Relegation or disqualification for littering or unauthorized feeding] As it now reads, it could say that there is a penalty for unauthorized littering, implying that there might be authorized littering... 6. p 15, item [B26a] (and numerous other places) You use the British term "overtake" in lieu of the US term "pass". I found this very conlfusing, think that it adds ambiguity here and in the later section on Stage Race Regulations. 6. p 15, item [B26a] (and in Stage Race section) What is a "technical director"? Granted, probably a common term, but one that needs defining. 8. p 22, item [B41] Restricts membership to reps of the collegiate conferences and Directors. Why not allow anyone appointed by the Board, not restricted to current Board Members? Lets open up the business of the Federation to more members of the Federation... 8. p 24, item [B45a] I presume we ban participation in other events in order to protect the safety of the riders, maintain control over winnings to protect amateur status, etc. Either forget such bans or maintain them, but shouldn't selectively excuse participation in some events. How about triathelons? How about shorter endurance races? 10. p 28, item [B50a], Permit Surcharge. Who is to enforce this? Is anybody enforcing the current version of the rule? 11. p 31, item [B55a], sub para (f): reference is made to an undefined "organizational team"... (There are a number of other suggested new rules, brought in from FIAC, which assume and imply a certain type of organizational structure. But that structure is not described or defined...) 12. p 34, para 4C1 : Now reads...placings are normally determined for stage races:... More accurately, unless you mean this to apply just to the major races, should read...placings may be determined..., or, ...placings often are determined.. 13. p. 36 para 4E2(b) How do we find "team managers"? Need requirement for them to sign in, keep officials/organizers notified of their location? And, oh by the way, this is another "BIG race bias in that you assume TEAMS. How about more normal small stage races wiht a number of unattached riders and small, poorly organized "teams"? 14. p 36, para 4E2(d) Are red flares or flags acceptable to local authorities? Usually restricted to emergency situations... 15. p36 para 4E5(b) The ...drawing of lots by teams on the day before the race... again assumes a BIG race and is not practical for a normal race 16. p37 para 4F2(b) Is there a "team manager" license? What form of license do you expect/require this person to have? para 4F3 again assumes a BIG race, with a gathering the previous day... 17. p38 para 4F7(c) Should be up to x minutes AFTER some event, not x minutes BEFORE some event. Otherwise the rider can never know when his time is up... para 4G1 and 4G2(b) If the Assistant Officials cannot participate, why are they considered members of the Commision? 18. p 39, para 4H3(a) and (b). This is redundent with 4G6. If they don't check in, they aren't there, haven't ridden, are out, and needn't be penalized. However, (b) should be retained as it applies to signing the finish sheet. 19. p42 I don't follow the logic of the formula. An alternative, which may resolve to the same solution, is A= W * (L-R)/(L-R-1). This would be close to the current practice. 20. general comment on the various proposals RE: championships... The fee structure and allowed participation in Dist Crit Championships needs to be looked at. Some are putting on normal races, with normal fees, calling it a Championship. I think that should be legitimized. 21. p 46, item [B65b] As an official, I ask you to please NOT go to an hourly rate. If we were to be slow and careful, we would be open to accusation of stalling to inflate our saleries...Of the several proposals I prefer [B65a] because it takes account of the number of riders which directly affects the amount and intensity of the work. 22. p 53, item B76a I disagree with the comment by the Legis Comm: even if the Exec Dir is ALLOWED to waive fees, there is no guarentee he will. This mandates it. However, this is overkill, poorly worded. If I receive a $200 grant for an additional Women's class, this wording would excuse my fee for the whole race... Again, my apologies for providing these comments so close to the date of your meeting. I hope they will be of some use to you. Stan Halpin halpin@alexandria-emh2.army.mil VP for Racing, Kansas City Bicycle Club, frequent race promoter, and Cat 2 official.

PDheader:1989-09-20 12:49:00-07:00 1da8add5e0f71966d0ba8b10cb5fcfd5 ∂20-Sep-89 1249 LES re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 4]: getting antsy over ANSI To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:38:24 CDT.]

Yes, I too have performed helmet drop tests the hard way, with similar results. In fact, my first two were in leather helmets and I had more than a sore neck. -Les

PDheader:1989-09-20 13:44:00-07:00 d7376fb5dad77a38f8787d27c0af03c7 ∂20-Sep-89 1344 varvel@cs.utexas.edu re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 4]: getting antsy over ANSI Received: from cs.utexas.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 89 13:44:21 PDT Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.42) id AA03607; Wed, 20 Sep 89 15:16:21 CDT Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 15:16:45 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 15:16:45 CDT Message-Id: <8909202016.AA00605@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA00605; Wed, 20 Sep 89 15:16:45 CDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89) To: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 4]: getting antsy over ANSI

Hmm ... I take it you've met ewd! I took his class and considered it absolutely delightful. Still, there are matters on which I disagree with him. For instance, I don't consider him the most intelligent person who has ever lived. 8-) -- Don (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

PDheader:1989-09-20 15:27:00-07:00 233931678cee631a2ffbc2f249d63d0f ∂20-Sep-89 1527 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:cbnewsh!dean@att.att.com USCF Race Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 89 15:25:11 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA22358; Wed, 20 Sep 89 15:25:00 -0700 Message-Id: <8909202225.AA22358@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 13:26:29 EDT From: dean@ho7cad.att.com (Dean S Jones) To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: USCF Race

Les, On Oct. 15 there is a USCF Santioned 36 mile race in my town on a new but un-opened stretch of interstate. I train on this road and am very interested in racing. I do not have a USCF Licence or whatever it might be called, and I was wondering how I might contact some officials in the area to either get one, or participate if they have a `citizens race'. I live sorta near the Lehigh County Veledrome, in Easton PA. I am pretty new to the idea of competitive cycling, and I don't know all the in's out's and who's in the area. Nice biking area though... Dean S Jones AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ dean@ho7cad.ATT.COM P.S. I do wear a Helmet...

PDheader:1989-09-21 00:45:00-07:00 8f38f744394e8f451a4f0c4c88d50486 ∂21-Sep-89 0045 LES re: Comments on USCF Board legislative proposals To: halpin%artic.decnet@ALEXANDRIA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL [In reply to message sent 19 Sep 89 19:05:00 EDT.]

Thanks for your good eyes and thoughtful remarks. I have put together a set of corrections that incorporate most of your observations as well as others embarrassing discoveries that I have made. Here are responses to some specific points that you make. . 2. p 6, item [B6b] No problem with the change as stated. But shouldn't . there be something done about those who never compete in a race with more . than 10 other racers and therefore are automatically "in the top 10"... In order to deal with this issue propoerly, we need to have a central (computer) register of race results, or at least major race results. I've been trying to bring that about for several years, so far without success, but I expect we will get there eventually. . 6. p 15, item [B26a] (and numerous other places) You use the British . term "overtake" in lieu of the US term "pass". I found this very . conlfusing, think that it adds ambiguity here and in the later section on . Stage Race Regulations. Thanks for pointing this out -- I've fixed it. I changed a number of other Britishisms in the original text but somehow overlooked this one. . 8. p 22, item [B41] Restricts membership to reps of the collegiate . conferences and Directors. Why not allow anyone appointed by the Board, . not restricted to current Board Members? Lets open up the business of . the Federation to more members of the Federation... Look again -- it requires only that there be at least one Director on the committee, which is essential in order to maintain communications. The rest can (and probably will) be from outside the Board. . 8. p 24, item [B45a] I presume we ban participation in other events in . order to protect the safety of the riders, maintain control over winnings . to protect amateur status, etc. Either forget such bans or maintain them, . but shouldn't selectively excuse participation in some events. How . about triathelons? How about shorter endurance races? The ban on participation in unsanctioned events is to protect the Federation's monopoly. Under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, if the USCF fails to do that it can be challenged and overthrown by another organization. In fact, I oppose this particular proposal. Triathalons are not bicycle races as long as each participant must completed all three legs. Those that are team competitions, with different athletes doing different segments, _do_ require USCF a race permit for the cycling segment, else the participants are subject to suspension. . 10. p 28, item [B50a], Permit Surcharge. Who is to enforce this? Is . anybody enforcing the current version of the rule? District reps should enforce. I assume that it is being enforced -- no local evidence to the contrary. . 13. p. 36 para 4E2(b) How do we find "team managers"? Need requirement . for them to sign in, keep officials/organizers notified of their . location? And, oh by the way, this is another "BIG race bias In a low key race, one member of each team should function as manager. . 14. p 36, para 4E2(d) Are red flares or flags acceptable to local . authorities? Usually restricted to emergency situations... No problems in California, I believe. As far as I know, red flags are OK everywhere. . 16. p37 para 4F2(b) Is there a "team manager" license? What form of . license do you expect/require this person to have? Any kind of USCF license will do. . 17. p38 para 4F7(c) Should be up to x minutes AFTER some event, not x . minutes BEFORE some event. Otherwise the rider can never know when his . time is up... How embarrassing! Now fixed. . para 4G1 and 4G2(b) If the Assistant Officials cannot participate, . why are they considered members of the Commision? So they can be called upon as needed for their observations and so that they can hear, and hopefully understand, the decisions of the senior officials. . 18. p 39, para 4H3(a) and (b). This is redundent with 4G6. If they don't . check in, they aren't there, haven't ridden, are out, and needn't be . penalized. However, (b) should be retained as it applies to signing . the finish sheet. Puzzlement -- I don't see any overlap with 4G6. . 19. p42 I don't follow the logic of the formula. An alternative, which . may resolve to the same solution, is . A= W * (L-R)/(L-R-1). This would be close to the current practice. If you restructure the formula in the proposal, it can also be expressed as A = W * (L - R - 1)/(L - R) You can see that this is the same as your formula with 1 subtracted from both numerator and denominator, but remember that this is for cases in which the rider is to be pulled just _before_ he is lapped, which explains the unit difference. . 21. p 46, item [B65b] As an official, I ask you to please NOT go to . an hourly rate. If we were to be slow and careful, we would be open to . accusation of stalling to inflate our saleries...Of the several proposals . I prefer [B65a] because it takes account of the number of riders which . directly affects the amount and intensity of the work. I understand your concern, but I also believe that hourly rates would be the fairest fee structure -- no more 10 hour days for $10. Besides, it might provide promoters with a bit more incentive to pay promptly -- have you ever waited for an hour while the promoter was invisible or "had to go get the checkbook?" . 22. p 53, item B76a I disagree with the comment by the Legis Comm: . even if the Exec Dir is ALLOWED to waive fees, there is no . guarentee he will. This mandates it. However, this is overkill, poorly . worded. If I receive a $200 grant for an additional Women's class, . this wording would excuse my fee for the whole race... Given that the Executive Director will generally decide which programs get grants, I claim that the Leg. Comm. comment is accurate. Thanks again for your helpful comments. Yes, it would have been nice to get them earlier, but better late than . . . whatever. -Les Earnest P.S. Given that you demonstrably have a functioning brain, you should consider running for the Board of Directors sometime. It helps to have people there who are genuinely interested in the sport to balance those who are mainly interested in how many personal boondoggles they can arrange.

PDheader:1989-09-21 12:24:00-07:00 2956659be7d2b72161685977dc07975b ∂21-Sep-89 1224 halpin%artic.decnet@alexandria-emh2.army.mil follow-up on earlier comments re USCF legislation Received: from alexandria-emh2.army.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 89 12:24:10 PDT Date: 21 Sep 89 15:18:00 EDT From: "ARTIC::HALPIN" <halpin%artic.decnet@alexandria-emh2.army.mil> Subject: follow-up on earlier comments re USCF legislation To: "les" <les@sail.stanford.edu>

1. I'm pleased that you found my comments of value. 2. I screwed up on one item, ie, . 18. p 39, para 4H3(a) and (b). This is redundent with 4G6. If they d on't . check in, they aren't there, haven't ridden, are out, and needn't be . penalized. However, (b) should be retained as it applies to signing . the finish sheet. Puzzlement -- I don't see any overlap with 4G6. The problem was that I gave the wrong reference. The redundency is with para 4G5, not 4G6. "Any participant not noted by the starter shall be deemed not [to] have ridden and shall not be included in the placings." Assuming thatsigning the starting sheet would constitute being noted by the starter, then failing to sign would constitute NOT being noted, and therefore failing to sign has already been penalized (severely!) If you distinguish between the sign-in process and the starters role, then its ok as it stands. But note the sentence in 4G5 which preceeds the one I quoted... I am sensative to this because I have found the sign-in/sign-out process to be the only way to keep track of who's there without time consuming and schedule disrupting roll-calls at the line, I would like to see such a requirement with some teeth in it, am concerned that 4H3(b) confuses the issue. 3. RE: my running for the Board. Thanks for the thought. I did that this year, was not elected, will try again next year (unless the direct representation ammendement passes in the House, in which case it will get very expensive to send out campaign letters, am not sure if I can manage. In the meantime I stand ready to help... stan halpin

PDheader:1989-09-21 22:04:00-07:00 6e905da3f36fd40abc6300f3987d9444 ∂21-Sep-89 2204 LES re: follow-up on earlier comments re USCF legislation To: halpin%artic.decnet@ALEXANDRIA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL [In reply to message sent 21 Sep 89 15:18:00 EDT.]

With respect to the sign-in rules, your logic would be valid if riders who neglect to sign in really were dropped from the race, but what usually happens is that they convince the chief referee that they really did start and that they should therefore be put back in the race. With a time penalty, of course. Sorry, I wasn't paying close attention to the Central race for the Board. On reviewing the results, I see that you mustered a substantial number of votes; you ought to give it at least another try. Don't worry about the possible shift to direct election of directors -- if that happens, everyone will have to depend on Cycling USA or a voters pamphlet published by the Federation for stating their position -- no one could afford to send mail to 12,000 people. That would be $3,000, assuming that postage rates don't go up. -Les

PDheader:1989-09-22 14:47:00-07:00 be775d565cbbf5112faeac2df5ebfc26 ∂22-Sep-89 1447 jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil Received: from cs.nps.navy.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 89 14:46:54 PDT Received: by cs.nps.navy.mil (5.51/1.26) id AA20898; Fri, 22 Sep 89 14:44:24 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 14:44:24 PDT From: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) Message-Id: <8909222144.AA20898@cs.nps.navy.mil> To: Les@sail.stanford.edu

Thanks for all the articles on the "Brain Bucket Bash." They're good reading.

PDheader:1989-09-25 18:14:00-07:00 0d1e24c32d6e88a240dfb7f20a5e9b3a ∂25-Sep-89 1814 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Gossip Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Sep 89 18:14:28 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13069; Mon, 25 Sep 89 20:13:33 CDT Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 20:14:50 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8909260114.AA05627@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 25 Sep 89 20:14:50 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Gossip

I have already had a couple of spy reports from the meeting, but don't let that stop you from telling me what really went on. I hope that your legislative work ended with a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. I imagine that you continue as chairman of that agony. For myself, I had a good session out in Washington DC with the USOC legislation committee, and I managed to get in some good touring as well. I was disappointed by the non-show of Hugo, however. Phil. (who is temporarily without USCF stationary that fits)

PDheader:1989-09-25 21:24:00-07:00 5099bd089124e4413a228d9a91f7450c ∂25-Sep-89 2124 LES re: Gossip To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 25 Sep 89 20:14:50 CDT.]

You were hoping that Hugo would come to Colorado? I went to San Diego a week ago when they were predincting that the typhoon just off the West Coast would produce storm surf there, but when I went surfing I found that it was much calmer than usual, alas. As you probably heard, Al MacDonald got Technical Chair, Kathy Volski got Development, and the rest of the characters remain unchanged. Some good things happened in the legislative session and some even better things didn't, as usual. The free market proposal went down in flames because of Rich & Heidi's insistence on putting it on the House of Delegates agenda. Not only did the House reject it but the Board members reversed themselves on the straw poll -- they were apparently afraid to be seen publicly supporting free enterprise. You may be saddened to learn that the white socks rule was finally blown away, though you seemed resigned to that at the Executive Committee meeting. Direct election of directors failed, as usual, as did most of Solin's crap. Richard continues Hell-bent on signing an agreement with USPRO at any cost. He tried to not show the draft contract to the Board, but I publicly coerced a disclosure in executive session. I was surprised to discover at that point that he was also keeping it a secret from the rest of the Executive Committee. It is just as bad as ever -- guaranteed to cost the Federation big bucks with no chance of breaking even and no prospective benefits to the Federation. Unfortunately, I was the only person there who apparently believes that. I agreed to do Legislation for another term, but I suspect that that will be enough for me.

PDheader:1989-09-27 14:42:00-07:00 a48185586e9d4df76c0fdd36717b1c65 ∂27-Sep-89 1442 cmacfarl@BBN.COM USCF House of delegates meeting Received: from MYSTERY.BBN.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 89 14:42:52 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:30:41 EDT From: Craig MacFarlane <cmacfarl@BBN.COM> To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: USCF House of delegates meeting

Hi Les, I've typing up a report for my club of the activities of last weekend. I have the decisions made by the HoD, but not the BoD. Could you send me any minutes or results from those meetings (if you have it that is)? I came away with a much better feeling about the USCF and where it is headed than when I arrived. I'll be sending the office a letter about it, but wanted you to know as well. Please let me know about the Board meetings. Craig Boston Road Club - President Replying-To: cmacfarl@BBN.COM Reply-Subject: re: USCF House of delegates meeting Reply-Text: [In reply to message sent Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:30:41 EDT.] Craig, I am preparing the Board minutes, but there were a number of "on the fly" amendments, as usual, so it will take me a couple of days. The source file is in troff; if you can print that, I will send you a copy. If not, I would be happy to answer questions about any specific items that you are interested in. In any case, I will post a summary of the more interesting changes in rec.bicycles as soon as the dust settles. I'm glad that you felt good about the experience. I had mixed feelings, as usual.

PDheader:1989-09-27 17:34:00-07:00 e1223bd1658958c149865264e3467db9 ∂27-Sep-89 1734 LES re: USCF House of delegates meeting To: cmacfarl@BBN.COM [In reply to message sent Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:30:41 EDT.]

Craig, I am preparing the Board minutes, but there were a number of "on the fly" amendments, as usual, so it will take me a couple of days. The source file is in troff; if you can print that, I will send you a copy. If not, I would be happy to answer questions about any specific items that you are interested in. In any case, I will post a summary of the more interesting changes in rec.bicycles as soon as the dust settles. I'm glad that you felt good about the experience. I had mixed feelings, as usual. I keep optimistically hoping that all the "good stuff" (in my view) passes and inevitably a lot of it doesn't. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1989-09-28 07:38:00-07:00 d4c43bf88d4569d85f9c3f1f2dbf62a9 ∂28-Sep-89 0738 cmacfarl@BBN.COM Re: USCF House of delegates meeting Received: from MYSTERY.BBN.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 89 07:38:21 PDT Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 10:26:08 EDT From: Craig MacFarlane <cmacfarl@BBN.COM> To: Les Earnest <LES@sail.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: USCF House of delegates meeting

Les, I would like a copy of the troff file, thanks. Things I was pleased with: The promoter meetings (it started poorly, but made up for it) The video and club handbook will go a long way in helping clubs Eventhough it was just three pages, the safety checklist that Andy put together was and will be helpful After talking to many of the promoters, I think there will be a strong push for moving to a free market entry fee system. I think most people voted against it because no one had any idea about what would happen if it passed. Many promoters felt that if they spelled out a plan for the change, it would pass. Thanks again for the file, Craig PS. Does this mean we have to wear our helmets while driving to/from the races? :-)

PDheader:1989-09-28 16:23:00-07:00 9dda5d5d5f81249a2702e1c2818329af ∂28-Sep-89 1623 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:roadman@Portia.stanford.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 12]: 1985 report continued Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 89 16:22:51 PDT Received: from Portia.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA29074; Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:22:34 -0700 Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.61/25-eef) id AA03851; Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:22:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:22:39 -0700 From: arthur walker <roadman@Portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <8909282322.AA03851@Portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 12]: 1985 report continued In-Reply-To: your article <12019@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: portia!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les

So why did you wait for a year and a half after ANSI helmets became mandatory for USCF races before buying one to replace your leather helmet? I'm above following up publicly but not above a private jab. art

PDheader:1989-09-28 21:53:00-07:00 6e37d42c94a435297a345f976ade13bf ∂28-Sep-89 2153 LES re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 12]: 1985 report continued To: roadman@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:22:39 -0700.]

> So why did you wait for a year and a half after ANSI helmets became mandatory > for USCF races before buying one to replace your leather helmet? How-in-Hell did you get this idea? Please reread the article. -Les

PDheader:1989-09-29 06:11:00-07:00 d0e6369776062cd5d3662fb100b2801f ∂29-Sep-89 0611 lagoze@cs.cornell.edu Re: It pays to ride a bike Received: from cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 89 06:11:50 PDT Received: from LOKI.CS.CORNELL.EDU by cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (5.61+2/1.91d) id AA00412; Fri, 29 Sep 89 09:13:00 -0400 Received: from bor.cs.cornell.edu by loki.cs.cornell.edu (4.0/I-1.91f) id AA21510; Fri, 29 Sep 89 07:57:30 EDT Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 07:57:29 EDT From: lagoze@cs.cornell.edu (Carl Lagoze) Message-Id: <8909291157.AA17059@bor.cs.cornell.edu> Received: by bor.cs.cornell.edu (4.0/N-0.08) id AA17059; Fri, 29 Sep 89 07:57:29 EDT To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Subject: Re: It pays to ride a bike Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <jcxDa@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY

I've thought about this idea at times in Ithaca. Do you have any idea how they enforce this? How do they know that someone who claims s/he is walking is not just parking a block away and walking?? Anyway, I've often thought that I deserve some reward for not adding new carbon monoxide, etc. to the air every morning and evening. -- Carl Lagoze lagoze@juro.cs.cornell.edu Dept. of Computer Science 607-255-8670 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853

PDheader:1989-09-29 08:31:00-07:00 5142ef5e3c8ed13be8dd23dea1d2d539 ∂29-Sep-89 0831 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: White socks blown off Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 89 08:31:43 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA01483; Fri, 29 Sep 89 08:31:14 -0700 Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.42) id AA22261; Fri, 29 Sep 89 10:32:23 CDT Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 10:32:12 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 10:32:12 CDT Message-Id: <8909291532.AA06900@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA06900; Fri, 29 Sep 89 10:32:12 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: White socks blown off Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <12026@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

In article <12026@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: > >Disk wheels and spoke covers will be permitted in _all_ races, not >just time trials. I will summarize other rule changes here as soon as >I finish writing up the meeting minutes. > Are front disks really a good idea in mass-start races? Somebody a while back quoted an international rule (therefor not really relevant here) that things couldn't be added to a bike solely to make it more aerodynamic. A disk wheel is structural, but doesn't a wheel cover fall under that rule? Finally, my new Bell Quest helmet is _much_ cooler than the old Performance Aero. I wear a helmet (when I have one -- I rode carefully in the neighborhood while waiting for a new one to arrive), but always had the impression it contributed to overheating. Maybe the Quest doesn't. -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

PDheader:1989-09-29 13:05:00-07:00 0a1cadbfe437caa80a98f9cb0a71338d ∂29-Sep-89 1305 LES re: It pays to ride a bike To: lagoze@CS.CORNELL.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 29 Sep 89 07:57:29 EDT.]

Sorry, but I have no direct knowledge of the scheme used in Washington -- I simply forwarded the AP article. I know that there are several people in that area who post on rec.bicycles from time to time and one or more of them may comment on the article. -Les

PDheader:1989-09-29 13:22:00-07:00 2de51838859138692210f1d11bf6ea33 ∂29-Sep-89 1322 LES re: White socks blown off To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 29 Sep 89 10:32:12 CDT.]

> Are front disks really a good idea in mass-start races? Certainly not, unless you are planning to break away from the start. The theory is that few if any people will make that stupid choice on their own. > Somebody a while back quoted an international rule (therefor not really > relevant here) that things couldn't be added to a bike solely to make > it more aerodynamic. A disk wheel is structural, but doesn't a wheel > cover fall under that rule? Yes, spoke covers fall under that rule and are not permitted in international competition. We permit them in USCF competition so as to bring down the cost of staying competitive and to circumvent the UCI's hypocrisy -- they permit Campagnola "disk" wheels to be used even though they are actually spoked wheels with covers. The reason for the UCI's "blindness" on this issue seems to be that Campagnola makes large donations to UCI each year. -Les

PDheader:1989-10-04 08:42:00-07:00 03e47317f9fa09ab65b932f47532a248 ∂04-Oct-89 0842 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu Re: Do you know the way to Fresno Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Oct 89 08:42:48 PDT Received: from Krakatoa.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA12682; Wed, 4 Oct 89 08:42:25 -0700 Message-Id: <8910041542.AA12682@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Received: by krakatoa.stanford.edu; Wed, 4 Oct 89 08:43:08 PDT Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 08:43:08 PDT From: Hy Tran <tran@krakatoa.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: Do you know the way to Fresno To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu

Thanks for the reply. Hy PS You seem to have gotten Roger Marquis really upset in rec.bicycles. While Roger may be a fine racer, I disagree somewhat with his advice on bike handling and gluing sew-ups. His helmet arguments (if any) are bordering on bogus. One more tidbit: "Bicycling" magazine, (namely Fred Zahradnik) did an interesting bit of testing in the May 89 issue. While I wouldn't publish such a test in "Nature", "Science", or "Cold Fusion News", it's the kind of test I might do (quick, dirty, and suggestive). Bare heads rate around 10 in coolness, hairnets 9, and the best of the real helmets are also around 9.

PDheader:1989-10-04 17:55:00-07:00 d0580e85078353098d5efc7969756f67 ∂04-Oct-89 1755 EUGENE%rcgl1@eng.eng.ohio-state.edu Re: Brain Bucket Bash Received: from eng.eng.ohio-state.edu ([128.146.10.73]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Oct 89 17:55:07 PDT Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 20:53 EDT From: EUGENE%rcgl1@eng.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Brain Bucket Bash To: les@sail.stanford.edu X-VMS-To: SONNET"les@sail.stanford.edu"

Just wanted to drop you a line saying how much I personally appreciate your efforts to bring about a helmet rule within the USCF. I've been following your "Brain Bucket Bash" series on the net, and I think that you're doing a great service to the thousands of cyclists out there, despite what some of the naysayers might think. Although what you're doing may seem like a thankless job sometimes, given some of the pigheaded macho-men who think helmets are for sissies, I think that if you saved just one life (you probably saved many), it would all be worth it. I think there are many people on the net who really find the Brain Bucket Bash series informative and educational; they just aren't so vocal about it, so I'm thanking you on behalf of the silent majority . Keep up the good work! Gene Liu EUGENE@rcgl1.eng.Ohio-State.edu

PDheader:1989-10-04 23:52:00-07:00 ba95589cdadbcd6669c2c8f91b5b0e12 ∂04-Oct-89 2352 LES re: Do you know the way to Fresno To: tran@KRAKATOA.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 4 Oct 89 08:43:08 PDT.]

Yes, I have known Roger for more than a dozen years and he has been consistently flakey throughout this period. The curious thing is that while his public postings range from opinionated to absurd, his email and other private communications range from complimentary to obsequious. He seems to be a very insecure and unstable dude. -Les

PDheader:1989-10-05 00:18:00-07:00 993129ae51d14d1861e57543b01cc1bc ∂05-Oct-89 0018 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:sun!ico!bobb@decwrl.dec.com Thanks Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 89 00:18:45 PDT Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA02570; Thu, 5 Oct 89 00:18:19 -0700 Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 5 Oct 89 00:19:45 PDT Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA08909; Thu, 5 Oct 89 00:19:35 -0700 Received: from ico.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07025; Thu, 5 Oct 89 00:15:35 PDT Received: from aspen.ico.isc.com (aspen.ico.isc.com.ARPA)

by ico.ISC.COM (4.12/ISCnet/9-15-87/dougm) id AA22476; Wed, 4 Oct 89 13:38:07 mdt Received: by aspen.ico.isc.com (5.51/386ix/2.0/%R%-leaf) id AA04896; Wed, 4 Oct 89 13:34:38 MDT Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 13:34:38 MDT Message-Id: <8910041934.AA04896@aspen.ico.isc.com> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu From: sun!ico.isc.com!bobb@decwrl.dec.com (Bob Bundy, (bobb@ico.isc.com)) Subject: Thanks I have read your articles for some time and wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your work at USCF, particularly on the helmet issue. I am not a racer but I do spectate and my son is about to enter the ranks. I got into a slinging contest with Roger a while ago over the heredity/environment issue both on the net and via some personal correspondence. If it's any consolation, he is even more offensive in his personal correspondence. His behavior on the net is just an extreme example of some fairly common net behavior. There was even a long discussion of this phenomenon in the human-factors group some years ago. There are plenty of theories of why this happens. In any case, normal standards of behavior seem to go out the window whenever conflicting views are presented and the people come from geographically different areas. (This is how wars sometimes get started.) In any case, I am adding Roger's newest "fact" about pros: "they don't crash" to his current list: 1. they don't have superior genes, they just train better 2. they don't roll tires 3. they don't have knee problems Keep up the good work, Bob Bundy

PDheader:1989-10-05 01:35:00-07:00 8d17171220ef9539ff77f8f130874b14 ∂05-Oct-89 0135 LES re: Thanks To: sun!ico.isc.com!bobb@DECWRL.DEC.COM [In reply to message sent Wed, 4 Oct 89 13:34:38 MDT.]

Thanks for your remarks. Interestingly enough, the personal correspondence that I have received from Roger ranges from very complimentary to downright obsequious. Of course, I have known Roger through bike racing for more than a dozen years and have known him to be consistently flakey throughout that period. My general assessment is that he is a very insecure fellow. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-10-05 09:59:00-07:00 ffc1db230aa2c199c66c80a4e0582033 ∂05-Oct-89 0959 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 89 09:59:34 PDT Received: from cs.utexas.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA03381; Thu, 5 Oct 89 09:59:05 -0700 Received: from ratliff.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.42) id AA09159; Thu, 5 Oct 89 12:00:25 CDT Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 12:00:40 CDT From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 12:00:40 CDT Message-Id: <8910051700.AA22513@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by ratliff.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.5-Client) id AA22513; Thu, 5 Oct 89 12:00:40 CDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <12180@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

In article <12180@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >Besides, if I was not such a persistently righteous bastard I would not be >in a position now to write a long story about how "I told you so!" > Yes, that's certainly how you come across. I can see why you rub Roger the wrong way, which is a little amusing since he seems to be another righteous bastard. However, you seem to get stuff done and I approve of all of the stands you report having taken. Keep up the good work! -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

PDheader:1989-10-05 15:58:00-07:00 09972293ffa36eae8bef3905f419724d ∂05-Oct-89 1558 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:jeremy%dunkshot.mips.com@mips.com Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 15]: the big decision Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 89 15:58:04 PDT Received: from MIPS.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA04921; Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:57:39 -0700 Received: from dunkshot.mips.com by mips.com (5.61.14/1.7) id AA15981; Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:58:49 -0700 Received: by dunkshot.mips.com (5.52/4.7) id AA18371; Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:58:48 PDT Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:58:48 PDT From: jeremy@mips.com (Jeremy M. Schneider) Message-Id: <8910052258.AA18371@dunkshot.mips.com> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 15]: the big decision Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <12123@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Bad-Cc:

In article <12123@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >[Sorry for the delay in this posting. My aging computer, parts of >which date back to 1966, was brain-damaged by a recent power failure.] > Oops! Part 14 never got to this site. Can you please mail me a copy? I have been enjoying your articles immensely! Keep up the good work. Jeremy -- Jeremy M. Schneider jeremy@mips.com MIPS Computer Systems {ames,decwrl}!mips!jeremy 930 Arques Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 408-991-7805 (work)

PDheader:1989-10-05 16:13:00-07:00 e8ad2f8c1cf9c6907b970cce53513efd ∂05-Oct-89 1613 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:pardo@june.cs.washington.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 89 16:13:21 PDT Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA05017; Thu, 5 Oct 89 16:12:51 -0700 Received: by june.cs.washington.edu (5.61/7.0j) id AA25991; Thu, 5 Oct 89 16:14:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 16:14:08 -0700 From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Return-Path: <pardo@june.cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <8910052314.AA25991@june.cs.washington.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <12180@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Cc:

In article <12180@polya.Stanford.EDU> you write: >[End of this series.] Thanks, Les! ;-D on ( The old hard shell game ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo

PDheader:1989-10-05 16:47:00-07:00 89232ab04a58f09af329823853d1aa22 ∂05-Oct-89 1647 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:cbnewsc!danny@att.att.com Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 89 16:46:56 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA05125; Thu, 5 Oct 89 16:46:32 -0700 Message-Id: <8910052346.AA05125@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 19:06:45 EDT From: danny@ihuxy.att.com (Daniel Saathoff) To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story News-Path: att!bellcore!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les References: <12180@polya.Stanford.EDU>

Les, Thanks for sharing the USCF helmet story. It was enjoyable to be able to get this information first hand, and I found myself looking forward to the next "part." Thanks also for showing an interest in preserving the King's English. It's a characteristic that is all too frequently ignored on the net. TOD (the other dan) Dan Saathoff att!ihuxy!danny

PDheader:1989-10-06 08:43:00-07:00 bf4e846a4be4cfe5100743cd5501bae6 ∂06-Oct-89 0843 pardo@june.cs.washington.edu Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 89 08:43:42 PDT Received: from localhost by june.cs.washington.edu (5.61/7.0j) id AA26531; Fri, 6 Oct 89 08:44:44 -0700 Return-Path: <pardo@june.cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <8910061544.AA26531@june.cs.washington.edu> To: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: The Brain Bucket Bash [Part 17]: Not the end of the story In-Reply-To: Your message of 05 Oct 89 21:19:00 -0700.

<bgb#s@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 89 08:44:43 PDT From: pardo@cs.washington.edu <pardo@june.cs.washington.edu> >When I said: >>[End of this series.] > >You said: >>Thanks, Les! > >You're welcome! Or were you saying thanks because I finally stopped? Ok, ambiguous english... thanks for the *series* :-) ;-D on ( Spike Bike vs. the USCF ) Pardo

PDheader:1989-10-08 09:26:00-07:00 f983ceffe30b69691e69a273c62868d3 ∂08-Oct-89 0926 jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu helmets, uscf, uci, everything Received: from shades.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Oct 89 09:26:48 PDT Received: by shades.cis.ufl.edu (5.61ufl/4.08) id AA02832; Sun, 8 Oct 89 12:27:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 89 12:27:45 -0400 From: Joseph N. Wilson <jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu> Message-Id: <8910081627.AA02832@shades.cis.ufl.edu> To: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu Subject: helmets, uscf, uci, everything

Les- I'd just like to forward a word of encouragement. I appreciate your postings. They're informative and entertaining. Of course the S/N ratio in the responses and rebuttals is usually very low. I was wondering if you had considered publishing some of your tales on paper for distribution to a wider audience? There might be some bikies willing to bite. joe wilson (jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu)

PDheader:1989-10-08 19:10:00-07:00 732b70bea153b45277d904b10de1289c ∂08-Oct-89 1910 LES re: helmets, uscf, uci, everything To: jnw@SHADES.CIS.UFL.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun, 8 Oct 89 12:27:45 -0400.]

Joe, Thanks for your encouragement but I'm afraid that the market for tales of bureaucracy are a bit limited. I have been publishing and giving away an underground newsletter called CYCLOPS USA since 1985. Primary distribution has been at meetings of the USCF Board of Directors, where I hand it out in order to inform the newer directors on the political history of some issues. A couple of years ago I began posting the articles that I thought might be of somewhat wider interest on rec.bicycles; in fact The Brain Bucket Bash is one of these. So was the legend of Officer Rupp, posted last year, and the series on drug testing. Editors of Bicycling and VeloNews learned of CYCLOPS several years ago and requested copies. They have been receiving it for some time and seem to enjoy reading it, according to their comments, but I have received no requests for republication. Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-10-09 10:39:00-07:00 0da4deb436286566ffd8aa67634345fe ∂09-Oct-89 1039 cbnewsh!dean@att.att.com Re: USCF rules changes for 1990 Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 89 10:39:51 PDT Received: from arpa.att.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA15416; Mon, 9 Oct 89 10:39:17 -0700 Message-Id: <8910091739.AA15416@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 89 11:33:22 EDT From: dean@ho7cad.att.com (Dean S Jones) To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: USCF rules changes for 1990 In-Reply-To: your article <12275@polya.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: att!bellcore!rutgers!apple!agate!shelby!polya!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les

Les, In one or two lines, could you describe the new A-E race cat's. I am planning to start racing in `90 and this info would help... Thanks! Dean S Jones AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ. dean@ho7cad.ATT.COM

PDheader:1989-10-12 07:41:00-07:00 e5e82100fabcfd5ead37ce0581639585 ∂12-Oct-89 0741 dcm@uswest.com helmet article series, #14 Received: from boulder.Colorado.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Oct 89 07:41:13 PDT Return-Path: <dcm@uswest.com> Received: by boulder.Colorado.EDU (cu-hub.890824) Received: by uswat.uswest.com (usw-hub.891010) Received: by cherokee.uswest.com (usw-generic.890623) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 89 08:38:01 MDT From: David Christian Menges <dcm@uswest.com> Message-Id: <8910121438.AA19009@cherokee.uswest.com> To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: helmet article series, #14

we missed #14 in your excellent series; could you mail to dcm@uswest.com?

PDheader:1989-10-17 19:56:00-07:00 fbb8d1ffaf4802e4222be75917cb7d4f ∂17-Oct-89 1956 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Your situation! Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Oct 89 19:56:49 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA28260; Tue, 17 Oct 89 21:56:03 CDT Date: Tue, 17 Oct 89 21:57:05 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8910180257.AA12870@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 17 Oct 89 21:57:05 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Your situation!

My mom had me rush to the TV to become apprised of the quake in your area. I don't know when you'll find the moment to read the message, but I just want you to know that I hope you, Joan, and the family are making out well. Well, maybe it was a little rougher for Bob Leibold? Anyway, I await word from you. Life here isn't without risks - I may have told you of my house having been hit by a tornado some time ago ... I've been reading rec.bicycles of course ... does this mean the % grade for some of the roads I've been reading about will have to be recalibrated? <-- Hope that's a little bit of a load lightener. Phil

PDheader:1989-10-18 12:26:00-07:00 56257f39ffc244b8fdd0ece576bf4c7d ∂18-Oct-89 1226 LES The situation To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 17 Oct 89 21:57:05 CDT.]

Now that we have power again, everything is fine. We lost assorted glasses, vases, and artifacts and some of our good furniture was crushed by cabinets that fell, but the house seems to be generally OK. I find it slightly painful to type because my left index finger was apparently under something that fell, but I curiously have no recollection of what it was that got me. I recall only that I was in the kitchen and had to dance out of the way of the refrigerator that was coming at me. Joan happened to be in a parking lot standing next to her car. She hung onto the car in order to stay upright. Son Ian had trouble getting home because the 280 freeway suddenly developed a curb-height bump in it just a half mile south of our house. I understand that that segment is now closed. Things seem to be returning to normal at a reasonable rate, though it will clearly take awhile to fix all the roads and bridges. We are also getting aftershocks every couple of hours; in fact there was another one just now. As you may recall, we have a large computer disk hanging by cables in the living room, which is a rather sensitive seismograph -- I see that it is swinging again now. During the big one, it was swinging in a 10 foot arc across the living room, knocking down lamps that happened to be in the way. Tomorrow I'm supposed to lecture a computer science class at the University of San Francisco on my racist theories. Guess I better leave early, given that there are likely to be some detours along the way. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1989-10-18 13:30:00-07:00 b7196cfa21663d62f5b4f95260f96452 ∂18-Oct-89 1330 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: The situation Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Oct 89 13:29:55 PDT Received: from gsun2.geog.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA11382; Wed, 18 Oct 89 15:29:08 CDT Date: Wed, 18 Oct 89 15:31:09 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8910182031.AA10305@gsun2.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by gsun2.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Oct 89 15:31:09 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: The situation

Good to hear from you and that you are all OK. Naturally I thought about your lazy-susan disk-seismograph when I tried to imagine what was going on at your house. I got a fancier color terminal for my home system (when, oh Lord, will I stop self-indulging?) It is higher resolution (though still your basic PC sized screen) and offers more colors than this eye can discern. MOST Important -- go check to make sure the hot tub isn't leaking. :) Tom Nee has been appointed by the UCI to be the not-commisioner chief of the Goodwill Games. Thas all

PDheader:1989-10-19 15:49:00-07:00 f68046ecb6d7d2bd9286c45065837900 ∂19-Oct-89 1549 LES re: The situation To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 18 Oct 89 15:31:09 CDT.]

> MOST Important -- go check to make sure the hot tub isn't leaking. :) I checked that first thing, of course, and discovered that most of the contents had sloshed out on the deck, leaving the tub less than half full. I don't understand this "not-comissioner chief of the Goodwill Games."

PDheader:1989-10-20 10:58:00-07:00 f27debd395176bf86208242b826d3eb6 ∂20-Oct-89 1058 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Not-the commisioner Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 89 10:58:26 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA13912; Fri, 20 Oct 89 12:57:35 CDT Date: Fri, 20 Oct 89 12:53:43 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 20 Oct 89 12:53:43 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Not-the commisioner Message-Id: <Q53F59C9@odin> In-Reply-To: <sFcg4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

"Not-the-commissioner" was me obscurely referring to your proposal to change the term used to refere to officials at bicycle races. I assume that they are still 'referees'?

PDheader:1989-10-21 15:49:00-07:00 66be428ae17d75a3e891b5bf93a2fd84 ∂21-Oct-89 1549 LES [From Associated Press; posted without permission] To: rec-bicycles@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU

EDITOR'S NOTE - Consider the advantages of pedal power: inexpensive and pollution-free. There are twice as many bicycles as there are automobiles, yet much of the world is curiously ambivalent toward them. Are they relics of another century or are they the wave of the future? By JOHN BARBOUR AP Newsfeatures Writer Here they come, thousands at a time steering quietly down the streets of Amsterdam and Beijing, or a file of humped silhouettes etched against the mountain-ocean sunset of California. Here they come, bicycles and their riders, caught by the dawn's early light or the headlight's glare, pumping legs, determined faces, wheeling to work, wheeling home, or just determined to stay fit. Bicycles. There are 800 million in all, 88 million in the United States, 300 million in China, a very personal, pollution-free mode of transportation. The question is: Are they relics of another century, or are they the wave of the future? The competition is the automobile, 400 million in the world. No one in his right mind would say it's an even fight. But the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, a think tank, recently published Worldwatch Paper 90 by Marcia D. Lowe with the title ''The Bicycle. Vehicle For A Small Planet.'' The message is that bicycles consume less energy per passenger mile than any other form of transportation, including walking. A cyclist can cover 3 1/2 miles on the calories in an ear of corn, 10 miles on the 350 calories in a bowl of rice. The average American car covers 10 miles on about half a gallon of gasoline, or 18,600 calories. Bicyclists do not produce smog or acid rain. They do not endanger the ozone layer and few cyclists are pulled over for DWI. They do produce sweat, however. Marcia Lowe writes that 33 states included bicycle promotion measures in their plans to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1970. Los Angeles would make major employers reduce the ratio of commuting cars to employees. Other Western cities would make employers provide bicycle parking and shower facilities. All of this comes 90 years after the bicycle craze crested in America. In 1899, with automobiles not yet on the road, and public transportation in the form of trolleys and electric trains just an infant enterprise, the United States was selling over a million bicycles a year. In a nation of barely 76 million, those were impressive figures. So ubiquitous were those ''safety'' bikes that they altered American fashions. Knickers kept pants legs out of the way of chain drives, long Norfolk jackets caught the mud, and women began to wear shorter skirts and, heaven forfend, bloomers, so they could ride their bikes. Whole families would go out for weekend bicycle outings. Fred Zahradnik of the magazine Bicycling points out that the bicycle was a vehicle for technology as well as people. The Wright Brothers were bicycle makers, as were hundreds of other tinkerers of the late 1800s. Orville and Wilbur experimented with lightweight tubing that eventually made their aircraft design possible. Glen Curtis worked on bicycles and applied motors to them before he concentrated on aircraft engine design. If one looks into the past, he may find some hints to the bicycle's future. In its heyday, the bike was personalized, individual transportation. ''It didn't have the upkeep of a horse or the expense of a carriage,'' Zahradnik says. ''If the roads got bad, you could pick it up and carry it. It was one of the fastest, easiest, simplest forms of transportation.'' And it built roads. It was the complaints of bicyclists in Washington and state capitals that led to the first modern surge of road-building. It paved the way for the automobile. But, oddly, it wasn't the car that led to the fall of the bicycle. It was public transportation, steam-powered locomotives and the electric trolley, which were felled in turn by the car. In the late 1800s, a good bike cost about $100, which was expensive in days when the average income was $8 a week. Today some are as cheap as $100 or as expensive as $3,000. The United States makes about 5 million bikes a year and imports another 5 million. Americans, however, remain in love with their cars. In China, where one person in every 74,000 owns an automobile, one in four owns a bike. In one study in the northern industrial city of Tianjin, monitors counted 50,000 bicycles passing one intersection in an hour. Bicycle ownership does not mean bicycle use. Forty-one million American bikes are owned by children. In Britain, one out of every four persons owns a bike, yet only one out of every 33 transport trips are made by bike. Writes Worldwatch Institute's Lowe: ''The United States has seven times as many bicycles per person as India, but because one out of every two Americans owns an automobile - compared with one out of 500 Indians - bicycles play a much more modest role in the U.S. transportation system.'' The Chinese phenomenon began when The Last Emperor, Pu Yi, began pedaling around the Forbidden City in the early 1900s. Today, China's annual bike sales exceed 40 million. ''The rest of the developing world lags far behind in bicycle transportation,'' says the Worldwatch report. ''In much of Africa and even more widely in Latin America, the prestige and power of auto ownership has made governments ignore pedal power and led citizens to scorn the bicycle as a vehicle for the poor.'' Oddly, the cost of fuel for Latin American and African cars contributes to their national debt and their trade deficits. There are exceptions. In Bogota, the capital of Colombia, the city's largest bakery replaced most of its trucks with 900 delivery trikes to supply 60,000 neighborhood shops. In Europe, the Netherlands and Denmark have taken steps to make their roads more friendly for cyclists with the result that bicycles are used for 20 percent to 30 percent of all urban trips and up to half in some towns. In the Netherlands, a recent system of taxes increased the cost of buying and driving a car by half. An electronic system will monitor speedometers and excessive drivers will be taxed accordingly. At the same time, public transit is being given an extra $5.7 billion a year. In Denmark, officials claim that gasoline prices are the highest in Europe, thanks to aggressive taxing. And, says the Worldwatch report, ''the Danish Ministry of Transport describes the 186 percent sales tax on new cars - compared with 47 percent in the Netherlands and 5 percent in the United States -as paying for three cars and getting only one.'' A British study showed that if only 10 percent of car trips of less than 10 miles were made by bicycle it would cut the country's fuel consumption by 14 million barrels of oil a year, 2 percent of annual consumption. The ironies abound. Third World governments concentrate on building roads for cars in their rural areas despite the fact that their rural citizens do not have cars or trucks. Worldwatch quotes transportation expert Wilfred Owen as saying, ''Many miles of roads in poor countries prove more useful for drying beans and peppers than for moving traffic.'' And even though bicycle rickshaws are a transportation mainstay in many Asian countries, and a means of raising the income and status of poor people, some local governments say they are unsafe or inhumane. A more likely motive, says Worldwatch, is that the quaint rickshaws make cities look poor or backward. So it comes to pass that in Dhaka in Bangladesh, the government threatened to phase out rickshaws, even though they employ 140,000 people and account for more than half of the city's passenger miles. And in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, some 100,000 rickshaws have been confiscated in the last five years and dumped into the sea. Japan, which makes cars for most of the world, leans heavily on bicycles and commuter railroads. When railway terminals began to suffer from bicycle pollution, the government set aside bike parking lots of which there are now 8,600 with a capacity of 2.4 million bikes. In urban downtowns where land prices are over $7,000 a square foot, they have built bike parking towers. In California, the university towns of Davis and Palo Alto vie for cycling honors. Davis boasts that a quarter of all trips made by its 44,000 citizens are made by bike. Bike trailers are a common sight for lugging groceries or children. Palo Alto pays its employees 7 cents a mile for all business travel by bike. It sponsors a city wide ''leave your car at home day,'' has a bicycle squad in its police force and holds a traffic school for children who break bicycle laws. Some employers in the city of 56,000 have joined the fray. One offers bike commuters $1 a day for every day they ride to work. Xerox provides free towel service in the shower room. It's been 173 years since the first bike appeared in 1816. A lot has changed. Bikes have evolved from a crude contraption called the hobbyhorse, which was propelled by the rider's feet on the ground, to the enlarged front wheel which covered more ground per each revolution of the rider's pedals, to chain drives and the safety bicycle, to today's one-piece lightweight frames. Bicycles gave the world ball bearings and pneumatic tires. In the late 1800s, bicycle racers were some of the highest paid athletes in the country, garnering winnings of between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. ''They were like today's superstars,'' says Bicycling's Fred Zahradnik. ''They traveled the world to race.'' Thousands flocked to see the six-day bike races on board tracks or concrete. At the turn of the century there were some 200 race tracks in the United States alone. One racer was Charles (Mile-a-Minute) Murphy. On June 30, 1899, he pumped up to 60 mph on a board track making use of the suction behind a fast locomotive. Another, Zahradnik says, was Major Taylor, ''one of the first great black athletes to emerge in the United States in the late 1800s. He was often turned down by hotels on his world racing circuit.'' Bike makers have constantly changed designs to appeal to young riders. With the balloon tire came Schwinn's Streamliner. There was the Donald Duck bike by Shelby, sporting a Donald Duck hood ornament and a quack-quack horn. There was the Huffy Radiobike which had a radio in the tank on the crossbars. In the late 1950s there was Bowden Spacelander and a drag racer called the Schwinn Orangecrate. But now engineers are setting out to improve designs for practical reasons. Bicycle trailers and three- and four-wheel designs are increasing the load-carrying capacity. The Oxtrike, designed at Oxford University, has a platform and gears capable of moving heavy cargo. In India, designers are working on a multipurpose bike that can double as a non-transportation motor for threshing rice paddies, shelling peanuts or pumping water. It may indeed be that the wheels of the past will power the future. AP-NY-10-07-89 2132EDT **********

PDheader:1989-10-26 00:43:00-07:00 a9e33cff466f9fbca11250e8e238b70b ∂26-Oct-89 0043 TVR Bicycle issue pending

Palo Alto Medical Foundation is proposing to close off the block of Bryant adjacent to their main facility to automobiles, thus mixing bicycles and [often not-so-able] pedestrians. Obviously Stanford has been having a problem with relatively alert pedestrians and bicycles. (I usually have at least one close call a month when actively bicycling.) I presume you might be concerned about such things as well. What i would like to do is to track down data supporting my contention that pedestrians and bicycles don't mix well. Accident information would be useful, as would be some opinion on what percentage of speed reduction would occur as a result. My own observation is that bicycles are pretty competitive with cars in terms of speed in the downtown area, and that interaction with pedestrians means only traveling at 20-50% of normal speed. Assistence on that point would be particularly appreciated. -- Tovar

PDheader:1989-10-26 01:31:00-07:00 4c5b4f314d5f70ee2b44cb43fe5e039e ∂26-Oct-89 0131 LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU re: Bicycle issue pending Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 26-Oct-89 01:31 PDT Message-ID: <u20k5@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: 26 Oct 89 0103 PDT From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: Bicycle issue pending To: TVR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU

[In reply to message rcvd 26-Oct-89 00:43-PT.] I'm afraid that I don't have statistics of the type you are seeking, though I agree that bicycles don't mix with pedestrians as well as with cars. John Forester makes this point in his book "Effective Cycling" (MIT Press) and could be cited as a reference. -Les Thanks for the reference. I didn't expect that you would have the statistics but was hoping you could tell me who does or how/where within the University that i might seek this information. This would be the kind of thing that the city would have to take seriously, especially given that it reflects local conditions. [Gosh, i hope i'm not starting to sound too much like a politician...] -- Tovar

PDheader:1989-10-28 12:13:00-07:00 14f59c878099a836a49e134ad5b12682 ∂28-Oct-89 1213 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Birthday greetings Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 89 12:13:53 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA10355; Sat, 28 Oct 89 14:11:38 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Oct 89 14:12:31 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8910281912.AA08489@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sat, 28 Oct 89 14:12:31 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Birthday greetings

Hi Les, It's my birthday, and so I will say greetings to you. (My bro-in-law is visiting and I'm showing him things. I had a card from Degarmo, in Belgium. Hmmm wonder what he is doing there?. When will I get a copy of the USCF legislation passed?

PDheader:1989-10-28 16:28:00-07:00 d464a94742bf4694be52b27d5326a97f ∂28-Oct-89 1628 LES re: Birthday greetings To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat, 28 Oct 89 14:12:31 CDT.]

Merry birthday! I too got a Belgian card from Richard that was recklessly complimentary. I think that he is up to something. I can send you the legislative results if you wish. I am rather worried about Rule Book production again this year. Having been criticised for lateness last year, Andy is determined to stick to the schedule that he published, which calls for sending it to the printers on November 1. I got a look at the first proof on Thursday and was told that I had until that afternoon to identify and document all the errors -- an absurdity. Furthermore, they haven't even started on the index and Andy foolishly thinks that he can do it in a single pass on Monday. Unfortunately, the rulebook is again a mess. I am continuing the review full time and plan to scream and shout at Jerry on Monday to block going to press. I am willing to accept the responsibility for the delay, though I didn't cause it, in order to prevent another fiasco. Cheers

PDheader:1989-10-28 16:41:00-07:00 d658c8157d93d2769b0890201be2801d ∂28-Oct-89 1641 LES Wheels To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat, 28 Oct 89 14:12:31 CDT.]

BTW, we got stung again by an "on the fly" amendment in the Board legislative session this year. Al MacDonald suddenly asserted that disc wheels are permitted in all UCI events, including sprint and massed start, and instantly generated an amendment to the wheel rule that permits discs and spoke covers in all events. Unfortunately, his wording also prohibited spoked wheels with less that 16 spokes in all events, which means that tri-spokes are now barred from time trials. Given that the House adopted my "emergency legislation" amendment, I plan to use it at the January meeting to try to fix this blunder. Of course, if a single director disagrees, we will have to live with it.

PDheader:1989-10-29 08:51:00-08:00 d8e624b6d3465fa6c8c8d64bd7c7aabd ∂29-Oct-89 0851 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Wheels Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 89 08:51:50 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA20468; Sun, 29 Oct 89 10:49:44 CST Date: Sun, 29 Oct 89 10:51:33 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8910291651.AA09281@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Sun, 29 Oct 89 10:51:33 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Wheels

Hmmm, I could have sworn I heard that tri-spoked wheels were allowed in time trials. I have become conservative lately in some affairs (as if you didn't know). I am not very crazy about tri-spokers for the reason that I think that they are very $$$, and assumming they present some sort of technological advantage their adoption has the effect of driving up the cost of the sport for local caliber riders. Thinking way back the disk wheel thingy was sort of silly. Imagine how many clubs and riders have to go trundling off the the races with multiple wheel sets (I am thinking of all the packing and hassles I used to go to for racing at Super Week in days gone by). So, while the cost goes up, the momentary advantage presumably will be erased when everyone has the same (expensive) technology and then we are back to racing athletes not bicycles again.

PDheader:1989-10-31 11:35:00-08:00 628ed082f97a469c04ead7e7c77a9ab4 ∂31-Oct-89 1135 LES re: Wheels To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Oct 89 10:51:33 CST.]

Jobst Brandt is the designer behind a number of successful Avocet products, so he seems to know enough to get the job done. His main job is as an engineer for Hewlett-Packard. My view on innovation is that whenever new technology appears that has substantially different properties, then the question of what to permit should be settled in the market rather than by fiat. In other words, new classes should be created, if necessary, to permit the public to decide what kinds of racing it wants. I would even be willing to see this scheme extended to bicycle helmets provided that an insuror could be found who would cover races with inadequate helmets and that the costs were borne by those who wished to indulge in such foolishness. Regarding Richard's Belgian adventure, he claims that he had to attend a UCI BMX meeting there.

PDheader:1989-10-31 17:01:00-08:00 e8cbda1ed5709db3405c1e8c386f8823 ∂31-Oct-89 1701 David_Patton@mts.rpi.edu many thanks Received: from rpi.edu ([128.113.1.5]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Oct 89 17:01:40 PST Received: from MTS.RPI.EDU (him2.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.0/SM37-RPI-ITS); id AA20215; Tue, 31 Oct 89 20:00:43 EST for les@sail.stanford.edu Date: Tue, 31 Oct 89 19:58:58 EST From: David_Patton@mts.rpi.edu To: les@sail.stanford.edu Message-Id: <1523312@MTS.RPI.EDU> Subject: many thanks

With respect to shaft drive bicycles, they are perfectly legal under USCF rules. They would also likely be legal under UCI (international) rules, though that organization often takes the position that innovations must be reviewed by their Technical Commission before being permitted in races. (On the other hand, that procedure is violated regularly by organizations that UCI is "in bed with," such as Campagnolo). I received copies of cyclops today, many thanks. Fascinating reading -- you have been part of some valuable history. Loved the story about Officer Rup p. I hope this reaches you. If so, please let me know. BTW, so you know a fellow at Stanford named Iain Boal? I think he is in the program in Values, Science and Society (something like that), a professor, and he is very knowledgable about bikes. Best wishes, David Patton.

PDheader:1989-11-01 01:34:00-08:00 5db5e21cfdb9d9ab9e00c6f7893324ce ∂01-Nov-89 0134 LES re: many thanks To: "David_Patton"@MTS.RPI.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 31 Oct 89 19:58:58 EST.]

I'm glad that you find the war stories interesting. Sorry, but I don't know Iain Boal. I was in the Computer Science Department. I am not active there currently but I still have an office at Stanford. As you probably know, there were a number of shaft drive bicycles produced beginning in the 1890s, but they lost out in competition with chain drive bikes. Rumor has it that new versions are now under development for cyclocross and mountain bike use, where the fully enclosed drive train would be advantageous under muddy conditions. Regards, Les Earnest

PDheader:1989-11-07 13:51:00-08:00 418729faed1065f3ae7825669988c26e ∂07-Nov-89 1351 LES More on drug busts To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

FYI, contrary to earlier claims, there does seem to be a standard for what constitutes deliberate doping. Jeanette Grice, the USOC drug control coordinator, has produced a memo dated March 17, 1988, stating that ephedrine or related compounds in concentrations greater that 10 micrograms per milliliter "indicate that the substance probably had a performance-enhancing effect." Armed with this, Jerry Lace issued a suspension to Maryanne Berglund, who was well over that level.

PDheader:1989-11-08 08:54:00-08:00 5375af94d37e6ddee83eb5da7ae93bd5 ∂08-Nov-89 0854 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: More on drug busts Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 89 08:54:01 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA06761; Wed, 8 Nov 89 10:51:58 CST Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 10:52:54 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8911081652.AA17307@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 89 10:52:54 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: More on drug busts PS: Incidently, it is indeed a letdown that you think I am a

dimwitted twit. I've always thought, and still think, that you are one of the only sane voices on USCF board. Thanks for the further clues and news on dope control. I am not too surprised that it is 1) possible to assess levels for concentration and 2) to make reasonable inferences that those levels are inconsistent with normal useage of over-the-counter medications. What I am more annoyed with is (of course) the waffling of USOC/Catlin Labs on this topic.

PDheader:1989-11-13 12:37:00-08:00 175698bf69dbb8b7da0fb45ef54f7953 ∂13-Nov-89 1237 LES Human-powered helicopter succeeds To: rec-bicycles@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU

[From Associated Press; posted without permission] a021 0059 13 Nov 89 SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (AP) - A bicycle racer pedaled a helicopter into the air in the first successful flight of a human-powered chopper, according to university students who worked on the project. ''It's probably the last great aviation achievement around,'' said Neal Saiki, 23, a senior at the California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, after Sunday's indoor test flight. As cheers filled Mott Gymnasium, the 100-pound copter, known as the Da Vinci III, hovered a few inches above the floor under the power of cyclist Greg McNeil, an aeronautical engineering major who races on the U.S. cycling team. The Da Vinci III, with a single 100-foot blade, is the fourth helicopter to be built by Cal Poly students since 1981. The last version, the Da Vinci IIb, was damaged in May. The helicopters are named after Leonardo da Vinci because he sketched a similar craft, university spokesman Bob Anderson said. Human-powered planes have flown, but not helicopters, the students said. The helicopter has a single 100-foot blade, resting above the cockpit where the pedaler sits. The seat and pedals swing freely in the center section, rather than rest on the floor like previous models. Saiki, who has worked on the project for more than two years, said three improvements contributed to the success of the latest version. ''We made it lighter, we made the rotors straighter and we got a pilot with a better output,'' Saiki said. But Saiki conceded that people of the future will not pedal about in their own helicopters, at least not copters like this one. ''It's far too big to ever be popular,'' he said. ''I mean, it fills up the gym practically wall to wall.'' AP-NY-11-13-89 0350EST **********

PDheader:1989-11-20 11:36:00-08:00 e1d19ca38fcbf6258ded5cbd69d62d6e ∂20-Nov-89 1136 larry@hpfela.hp.com Re: New Triathlon Bike rules Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Nov 89 11:36:32 PST Received: from hpfclp.sde.hp.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA22733; Mon, 20 Nov 89 11:37:57 -0800 Received: from hpfcla.hp.com by hpfclp.sde.hp.com with SMTP (15.11/15.5+IOS 3.12) id AA18862; Mon, 20 Nov 89 12:35:38 mst Received: from hpfela.HP.COM by hpfcla.HP.COM; Mon, 20 Nov 89 12:34:57 mst Received: from hpfelg.HP.COM by hpfela.HP.COM; Mon, 20 Nov 89 12:41:48 mst Received: by hpfelg.HP.COM; Mon, 20 Nov 89 12:42:21 mst Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 12:42:21 mst From: Larry Chapman X3117 <larry@hpfela.hp.com> Message-Id: <8911201942.AA29774@hpfelg.HP.COM> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: New Triathlon Bike rules Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: article <1989Nov17.234309.15698@Neon.Stanford.EDU> of Fri, 17 Nov 1989 23:43:09 GMT

Les -- The guy primarily responsible for the Triathlon Federation bicycle spec is Bob Langan. He is trying to get ahold of you but he suggested that you both try each other. Bob Langan (714) 680-6054 (hm) (213) 694-7471 (wk) -- LSC --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**-- * LSC (aka Larry Chapman) * * "No matter where you go, there you are." * - Buckaroo Bonzai - - (303) 229-3117 (complete with voice mail, gee.) - * hpfcla!chapman * --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--

PDheader:1989-11-29 19:17:00-08:00 9f75c531fff428e38aeb577828e819e8 ∂29-Nov-89 1917 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu USCF Rule Book 1990 Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Nov 89 19:17:00 PST Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA11193; Wed, 29 Nov 89 21:14:59 CST Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 21:16:31 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <8911300316.AA13973@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 29 Nov 89 21:16:31 CST Message-Id: <9001171930.AA02384@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:30:55 CST To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: USCF Rule Book 1990

Today I got a copy of the draft of the USCF Rule Book, I hope that it is a relatively early draft, since there is a lot of typography work that needs to be done. One thing caught my eye - Did the house of delegates really pass the requirement to continually publish racing rule changes until the Rule Book is printed? That was in the copy I had. I played with the license count data, it seemed coherent. I was amazed do see that there was a dramatic fall-off in the Junior and younger categories - the senior and masters groups continued to increase at what has been our standard pace. This should give a little pause to those who are hoping that the Jr World Championships will be an opportunity for the home team.

PDheader:1989-11-29 22:33:00-08:00 6f4b54f579f7bc57c1745ba334a9fb17 ∂29-Nov-89 2233 LES re: USCF Rule Book 1990 To: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu [In reply to message sent Wed, 29 Nov 89 21:16:31 CST.]

> Today I got a copy of the draft of the USCF Rule Book, I hope > that it is a relatively early draft, since there is a lot of > typography work that needs to be done. The last version that I saw was a total mess. They gave me one day to review it, but I took four days and caught several hundred errors. Unfortunately, there are likely a lot more. They still do not have their act together. > One thing caught my eye - Did the house of delegates really > pass the requirement to continually publish racing rule changes > until the Rule > Book is printed? That was in the copy I had. Unfortunately, they did adopt that bit of Solin idiocy. That means that the emergency amendments that we adopt in January will have to be printed every month for about a year. > I played with the license count data, it seemed coherent. Alas, that means that you have a later version than the one I saw, whose numbers were grossly inconsistent. I fear that this year's Rule Book will be even more screwed up than last year's, though it should get better from here on. Subject: I shot an arrow > I was amazed do see that there was a dramatic fall-off in the Junior > and younger categories - the senior and masters groups continued > to increase at what has been our standard pace. Yes, the Baby Boom is over.

PDheader:1989-12-06 11:06:00-08:00 4119bcf1622699ab27bc8ec8b0823bf1 ∂06-Dec-89 1106 pyramid!ctnews!unix386!bhilden@decwrl.dec.com Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Dec 89 11:05:58 PST Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 6 Dec 89 11:06:58 PST Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA11802; Wed, 6 Dec 89 11:06:00 -0800 Received: by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.61/OSx5.0-890710) id AA23933; Wed, 6 Dec 89 09:09:59 -0800 Received: by ctnews.Convergent.COM (5.51/smail2.5/6-9-88) id AA03424; Wed, 6 Dec 89 16:55:08 GMT Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 16:55:08 GMT From: unix386!bhilden@decwrl.dec.com Message-Id: <8912061655.AA03424@ctnews.Convergent.COM> Apparently-To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU

From unix386!bhilden Wed Dec 6 16:54:56 1989 To: ctnews!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!LES Subject: Re: Nearly 2,000 'Batman' Bikes Stolen In-reply-to: your article <kG1XN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: ctnews!pyramid!decwrl!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!LES Les, I have an unrelated question. How are the USCF and the NCL getting along. I was briefly involved with the NCL last year(over the phone, no contracts, just talking) and am wondering what penalties may be sanctioned against those who throw caution to the wind(and lack good common sense) and join this league(realizing that it probably never will happen)? Thanks, Bruce

PDheader:1989-12-07 00:39:00-08:00 5a6e11dc2f2c05ce5d47379f25581db3 ∂07-Dec-89 0039 LES NCL To: pyramid!ctnews!unix386!bhilden@DECWRL.DEC.COM

Bruce, I agree with your assessment that NCL is unlikely to do much in 1990. Formally, the NCL lawsuit against USCF and a number of individuals (I am the first named) was still in existance the last time I checked, but it was never served. Rumor has it that O'Neil asked his lawyer to withdraw it but the lawyer refused to do anything until NCL paid his overdue bills. If NCL puts on races without USCF or USPRO permits, any licensees will be subject to suspension -- normally 30 days for the first such incident and scaling up thereafter. So if you decide to try it, I recommend that you defer renewing your USCF license. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1989-12-07 09:44:00-08:00 943c0f62ba44f0710a58507d03895632 ∂07-Dec-89 0944 pyramid!ctnews!unix386!bhilden@decwrl.dec.com Re: NCL Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Dec 89 09:43:29 PST Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:44:21 PST Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA17442; Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:43:19 -0800

I apologize for leaving the BOD meeting without exactly saying good-bye. How did the remainder of the seance go? I am of course most curious if a discussion arose on the conflict-of-interest question. Beth was very worked up about the question and was going to ***e you when the chance presented itself. (I leave it to your mind to match mine with the right *** characters). ALSO I posted a reply/followup in rec.bicycles but don't know how things like that work ... will I eventually see my own message when it has finally circulated here and there? Maybe you could wave your hand if you note it in the next day or two. I haven't invented a fancy signature file to include either.

PDheader:1989-12-15 08:21:00-08:00 9efde168c04109cfe9658c088134cd4b ∂15-Dec-89 0821 cbnewsd!jdu@att.att.com Re: Free market (was Re: Crit Racing) Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Dec 89 08:21:22 PST Received: from arpa.att.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA08208; Fri, 15 Dec 89 08:22:16 -0800 Message-Id: <8912151622.AA08208@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> From: cbnewsd!jdu@att.att.com Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 09:54 EST To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Free market (was Re: Crit Racing) id AA06993; Tue, 23 Jan 90 12:04:09 -0800 Received: from ttidcb

by ttidca.TTI.COM (5.51/UUCP-Project/rel-1.0/12-09-86) id AA29411; Tue, 23 Jan 90 11:04:46 PST Received: by ttidcb.TTI.COM (5.51/UUCP-Project/rel-1.0/12-09-86) id AA09667; Tue, 23 Jan 90 11:04:39 PST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 11:04:39 PST From: Marvin Moskowitz <marvinm@ttidca.tti.com> Message-Id: <9001231904.AA09667@ttidcb.TTI.COM> To: LES@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Re: One-Day Car Ban Changes Milan's Look, Improves Air Quality Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1989Dec15.012313.7010@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <9374@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1989Dec13.160352.25310@planck.uucp> <1989Dec14.010038.27317@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <3140@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Cc: In article <1989Dec15.012313.7010@Neon.Stanford.EDU> you write: >For example, a number of cities such as Berkeley, CA, have imposed >rent controls on housing. As a result, they have many abandoned >houses in their community, where it no longer paid the landlord to >continue renting. For houses and apartments that are still for rent, >landlords find that it doesn't pay to make more than minimal repairs. >The city government seems to think that they are protecting their >citizens from gouging landlords, but what they are actually doing is >screwing up the housing market and encouraging disintegration of houses. >-- >Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 I have seen the same thing happen in many cities that don't have rent control. I believe that you would find that the highest rent per square foot comes from slum housing. The tradition is to pack in lots of people to be able to pay the rent on the apartment. Of course, the landlord doesn't put any more than minimal upkeep into the building because that would reduce the short-term profit. After a while, the building disintigrates, and the landlord abandons it. The city takes the building for taxes, but nobody will buy it because the structure is unsound and potential buyers don't wish to build new buildings in "bad" neighborhoods. I have seen this in Chicago and Lousiville where the rent was not controlled. I have also seen this philosophy of maintenance in the "student slums" around Purdue. There, it is not quite as bad since the landlords usually keep the buildings from falling down. They may not keep the heat going, though. In some cases that doesn't matter since the students who live there cannot afford to heat their houses and apartments on the grad student salaries at Purdue. I was lucky, AT&T payed me for my year at Purdue, so I could afford a decent place to live. Some of my friends weren't so lucky. John Unruh

PDheader:1989-12-15 17:10:00-08:00 0fc16ffc77e488339644e35b2cddff6f ∂15-Dec-89 1710 LES re: Free market (was Re: Crit Racing) To: cbnewsd!jdu@ATT.ATT.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 15 Dec 89 09:54 EST.]

I agree that housing decay occurs in all cities, but it is generally much worse in those that impose rent controls. For example, it is much worse in Berkeley than in nearby cities that don't do it. -Les

PDheader:1989-12-16 00:57:00-08:00 28e3c5eea4d8b902995a779783b81869 ∂16-Dec-89 0057 cbnewsd!postmaster@att.att.com Received: from arpa.att.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Dec 89 00:57:10 PST From: cbnewsd!postmaster@att.att.com Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 00:29 EST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU

From postmaster Sat Dec 16 00:29 EST 1989 Mail to `jdu' alias `pid=' from `att!arpa!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!LES' failed. The command `exec post -x -o '%↑24name %20ema %↑city, %+state' -- pid=' returned error status 100. The error message was: post: pid=: Not found The message was: From att!arpa!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!LES Fri Dec 15 20:10:35 1989 Message-ID: <qK#6R@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Dec 89 1710 PST From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: Free market (was Re: Crit Racing) To: cbnewsd!jdu@ATT.ATT.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 15 Dec 89 09:54 EST.] I agree that housing decay occurs in all cities, but it is generally much worse in those that impose rent controls. For example, it is much worse in Berkeley than in nearby cities that don't do it. -Les

PDheader:1989-12-19 17:02:00-08:00 e4e5c0d28197bbc5f6d80cdcdce19405 ∂19-Dec-89 1702 jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Address Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Dec 89 17:01:49 PST Received: from hplms1.HPL.HP.COM (hplms1.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Tue, 19 Dec 89 16:41:37 pst Full-Name: Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Tue, 19 Dec 89 16:41:06 pst Date: 19 Dec 89 16:23 -0800 Subject: Address Message-Id: <29709732.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 19 Dec 89 16:35:21-PST (Tue)

You were right. There was a change in address but not visibly. jobst_brandt@hplabs.hpl.com

PDheader:1989-12-20 18:51:00-08:00 6c5335b72cd101436c3af8b37bd750fd ∂20-Dec-89 1851 ME mail to HPLabs from SAIL To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, postmaster@HPLABS.HP.COM

The reason that SAIL cannot get mail through to jobst_brandt@HPLABS.HP.COM is that the SMTP server at HPLABS is not allowing quoting of the user name. SAIL is putting quotes around the name because it contains an underscore. When I manually tried it without the quotes, the address was accepted. Here's a transcript. Domain lookup ... Trying hplabs.hp.com [15.255.176.47] ... Open 220 hplabs.HP.COM HP Sendmail UIUC-5.44 ready at Wed, 20 Dec 89 18:30:17 PST HELO SAIL.Stanford.EDU 250 hplabs.HP.COM Hello SAIL.Stanford.EDU, pleased to meet you MAIL From:<ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 250 <ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>... Sender ok RCPT To:<"jobst_brandt"@HPLABS.HP.COM> 550 <"jobst_brandt"@HPLABS.HP.COM>... User unknown RCPT To:<jobst_brandt@HPLABS.HP.COM> 250 <jobst_brandt@HPLABS.HP.COM>... Recipient ok rset 250 Reset state quit 221 hplabs.HP.COM closing connection Now, RFC 821 (SMTP) permits such quoting of the user name, so my conclusion is that the server at HPLABS is violating the protocol. On the other hand, it turns out that SAIL doesn't need to quote the string containing the underscore, so I'll see if I can fix that. The comment below from "someone at HP" has no truth in it. We send the mail to the address specified by the domain system. That address appears in the transcript above. If that address is wrong, then some piece of the domain system (not SAIL) is at fault. Personally, I think this remark is totally off the wall. "From what we have seen here, your mailer sends everything to HP Labs Bristol England instead of HPL in Palo Alto.

PDheader:1989-12-21 08:54:00-08:00 d8ba1b5a5fa9540275886a021992d828 ∂21-Dec-89 0854 jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Addrerror Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 89 08:54:06 PST Received: from hplms1.HPL.HP.COM (hplms1.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Thu, 21 Dec 89 08:53:09 pst Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Thu, 21 Dec 89 08:52:42 pst Date: 21 Dec 89 08:38 -0800 Subject: Addrerror Message-Id: <29754686.1099836.243.4@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: hosler_ray@comm.tandem.com, jack@next.com, les@sail.stanford.edu,

adrian%ntmtv@hplabs.hp.com, olaf@ocf.berkeley.edu, woodfill@polya.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 21 Dec 89 8:51:57-PST (Thu) I was wrong about my more specific address. The correct address jobst_brandt@hplabs.hpl.hp.com <-- new jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com <-- old but OK This more specific address was suggested because some mail from Stanford was going to HPLABS Bristol England where there is no general directory for HP and "user unknown" mail is returned. This should force the mail to come to the right place. Of course if there has been no problem with the shorter address then I guess that should work. JB

PDheader:1989-12-21 10:59:00-08:00 102c3885492c9df379dc2ff03b841f0d ∂21-Dec-89 1059 jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com e-mail Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com ([15.255.176.66]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 89 10:59:22 PST Received: from hplms1.HPL.HP.COM (hplms1.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:59:13 pst Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:58:56 pst Date: 21 Dec 89 10:18 -0800 Subject: e-mail Message-Id: <29761792.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 21 Dec 89 10:55:58-PST (Thu)

Thanks for the research on e-mail. I sent the whole discourse to out mail expert who will take appropriate action I'm sure. Meanwhile, what do you suggest to overcome my posting to rec-bicycles@ucbvax...? I read with interest that Doyle was seriously injured in the Munich 6-Day and no mention is made whether he ever came out of the coma. Track racing is probably the first place that hard shell foam helmets should be standard equipment. It is hard to understand that the organizers haven't invoked such a rule. On an indoor board track, glossy team helmets would look a lot better than hairnets. JB

PDheader:1989-12-21 11:33:00-08:00 5a9e0892e900cb0e5dda5ad697c659ba ∂21-Dec-89 1133 northrop%hpldjn@hplabs.hp.com Re: mail to HPLabs from SAIL Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 89 11:32:59 PST Received: from hpldjn.HPL.HP.COM (hpldjn.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:30:46 pst Received: from localhost by hpldjn.HPL.HP.COM; Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:30:46 pst Full-Name: David Northrop Message-Id: <8912211930.AA28202@hpldjn.HPL.HP.COM> To: Martin Frost <ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Cc: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, postmaster@HPLABS.HP.COM Subject: Re: mail to HPLabs from SAIL In-Reply-To: Your message of "20 Dec 89 18:51:00 PST."

<17NvTd@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:30:41 PST From: David Northrop <northrop%hpldjn@hplabs.hp.com> > The reason that SAIL cannot get mail through to jobst_brandt@HPLABS.HP.COM > is that the SMTP server at HPLABS is not allowing quoting of the user name. Actually, as your test proves, we do ALLOW quoted usernames. What we don't do is interpret a quoted local part as being semantically equal to the same local part in unquoted form in all cases. The exception, which occurs for jobst_brandt is when the local part is actually an alias, rather than a username. > Now, RFC 821 (SMTP) permits such quoting of the user name, so my conclusion > is that the server at HPLABS is violating the protocol. Well... As I say, hplabs doesn't reject quoted usernames. We actually conform to RFC 821. RFC 822 is the one that gets us in trouble. 3.4.4. DELIMITING AND QUOTING CHARACTERS [ ... ] Quotation marks that delimit a quoted string and backslashes that quote the following character should NOT accompany the quoted-string when the string is passed to processes that do not interpret data according to this specification (e.g., mail protocol servers). In-Reply-To: <1Ozx5U@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica In article <1Ozx5U@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write: > >[Now if L.A. would try this and turn the freeways into bikeways for a >day . . . ! -Les] In fact, one could argue that if the alias expansion is done in the sendmail process itself then our sendmail does follow even RFC 822. But I won't. It's intuitive to believe that "local-part"@host should end up going to the same place as local-part@host. I can point out that, while we might not be intuitively correct, we at least exhibit conformance to standard practice. Sending To:<"postmaster"@host> fails where host is any of: uunet.uu.net ucbvax,berkeley.edu mit.edu rutgers.edu sun.com att.com just to pick some fairly well known sites or, if you prefer, stanford's own argus.stanford.edu Since most of these are derived from BSD sendmail it's not surprising the all display the same sub-optimal behavior. > On the other hand, it turns out that SAIL doesn't need to quote the string > containing the underscore, so I'll see if I can fix that. Thank you. We really do appreciate that we're asking you to modify your mailer to be able to talk to our sub-optimal one. > The comment below from "someone at HP" has no truth in it. I believe you received the intial request for help in resolving a mail problem from Karen Bradley. Surely the mail you received was signed. In any case, while Karen might sometimes make mistakes, she is not stupid and she does not lie. Perhaps you misunderstood her. > > "From what we have seen here, your mailer sends everything to > > HP Labs Bristol England instead of HPL in Palo Alto. That is indeed what the headers I've seen indicate. While I haven't seen the headers for every single message sent from sail to hplabs, I have seen enough to indicate that sail is in fact occasionally sending mail off to merry old england. However, I believe that if you can avoid the use of "'s around usernames when sending to hplabs, that will fix the problem. Again, we do appreciate your help. > Personally, I think this remark is totally off the wall. I'm sorry you found the problem report so disturbing. It's really not our practice to attack random strangers. Or did you intentionally make a self-referential statment? :-) Anyway, thanks for working with us to ensure that our users can send mail to one another. Happy Holidays. david -- David J. Northrop northrop@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (415) 857-3947

PDheader:1989-12-21 16:31:00-08:00 7d0c304aebbc2f5a93ac57fb036952f1 ∂21-Dec-89 1631 jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Mail Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 89 16:30:55 PST Received: from hplms1.HPL.HP.COM (hplms1.hpl.hp.com) by hplms2.hp.com; Thu, 21 Dec 89 16:30:48 pst Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Thu, 21 Dec 89 16:30:28 pst Date: 21 Dec 89 15:46 -0800 Subject: Mail Message-Id: <29776194.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@hplabs.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 21 Dec 89 16:15:43-PST (Thu)

Well, your mail gets through now. Who made the change? I forwarded the whole correspondence that you sent to jbrandt@hplbohr to our mail freaks. I haven't heard from them yet but I suspect all will clear up soon. What do you know about rec-bicycles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu? I am not making much headway there. JB

PDheader:1989-12-25 03:29:00-08:00 e84e8e07356d92abcf9ce84993d9bf38 ∂25-Dec-89 0329 LES re: Mail To: jobst_brandt%40%hp1900@HPLABS.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 21 Dec 89 15:46 -0800.]

I imagine you're joking a bit, but my experience here in town aggrees with Forrester's assertions in _Effective Cycling_, i.e bikeways are the MOST dangerous place for competent cyclists to be, because of the unpredictability of incompetent cyclists, skaters, and illegal pedestrians. I just posted an article about the human powered helicopter to rec-bicycles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu and it showed up on rec.bicycles, so it appears to still work for me. If it doesn't work for you, I suggest asking your local email wizard why not. Merry Christmas! -Les Most of the accidents that have happened to myself and friends has been on bikeways or on the road with wrong way cyclists, NOT with vehicles (although I don't cherish sucking bus exhaust).

PDheader:1989-12-25 19:36:00-08:00 b8b3152fbc580db884e5f3c3bfb2a0fc ∂25-Dec-89 1936 well!marquis@apple.com disk wheel rule changes Received: from apple.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Dec 89 19:35:58 PST Received: by apple.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA04961; Mon, 25 Dec 89 19:25:29 PST

for Received: by well.sf.ca.us (4.12/4.7) id AA23996; Mon, 25 Dec 89 13:35:31 pst Date: Mon, 25 Dec 89 13:35:31 pst From: well!marquis@apple.com (Roger Marquis) Message-Id: <8912252135.AA23996@well.sf.ca.us> To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Subject: disk wheel rule changes Give me the recognition of bike as vehicle that LAW has long fought for, and I'm much happier. Les, I heard that disk wheels were going to be legal in mass start races this year. Can you verify this? Could this be the reason insurance premiums have taken off again? Merry Christmas, Roger marquis@well.cf.ca.us BTW, I've long appreciated your postings and your efforts in the interests of cycling. I belong to the 800 member San Fernando Valley Bicycle Club (we actually get a couple hundred riders for our assortment of rides on saturday and Sunday; 3-4 rides each of these days). Although the club is NOT a racing club, it pays dues to USCF so that any members who want ot race don't have to pay non-associated fees.

PDheader:1989-12-26 01:23:00-08:00 06d3153413500c9755655d3599a1f20e ∂26-Dec-89 0123 LES re: disk wheel rule changes To: well!marquis@APPLE.COM [In reply to message sent Mon, 25 Dec 89 13:35:31 pst.] My query: I don't want to race, but would like to support USCF to

promote the sport (I think racing advances the interest in the sport through publicity and advances the technology). Is there a form of membership for folks like me? -- *Marvin S. Moskowitz * *Citicorp/TTI * *3100 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450 9111 x3197 * *Path:{philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!marvinm or marvinm@ttidca.tti.com *

PDheader:1990-01-16 13:14:00-08:00 1ccc0c5ae69617bd4a9192dde32a35b0 ∂16-Jan-90 1314 LES re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France To: jfh@RPP386.CACTUS.ORG [In reply to message sent 16 Jan 90 08:14:33 CST.]

John, Jobst Brandt is the designer behind a number of successful Avocet products, so he seems to know enough to get the job done. His main job is as an engineer for Hewlett-Packard. With respect to shaft drive bicycles, they are perfectly legal under USCF rules. They would also likely be legal under UCI (international) rules, though that organization often takes the position that innovations must be reviewed by their Technical Commission before being permitted in races. (On the other hand, that procedure is violated regularly by organizations that UCI is "in bed with," such as Campagnolo). As you probably know, there were a number of shaft drive bicycles produced beginning in the 1890s, but they lost out in competition with chain drive bikes. Rumor has it that new versions are now under development for cyclocross and mountain bike use, where the fully enclosed drive train would be advantageous under muddy conditions. I confess that I didn't finish the main agenda till last Friday (9/23), which means that I am behind schedule on the Stage Race redo, but I'm plugging away. Here is a review of all the changes that I knowingly made in your proposals from page 3 on (the part that was not included in the draft agenda that you saw). I have not listed obvious minor glitchs that were fixed, such as calling senior events "senior men." This all would have been a bit easier if I could negotiate with you by email or phone. Yes, I could have done that if I had finished this earlier. In any case, I stand ready to fix any changes that you don't like. In cases where I was less certain that you would agree with my "improvements," I put in a separate amendment to your proposal. If you regard any of these as "friendly," please say so in advance, so that we can save time at the meeting. Of course, some of the amendments represent known differences in viewpoint between us and will have to be hassled out in public. BTW, it would be easier to identify things if your proposals had item numbers. [Page 3] 4A (Records): I separated the age-graded record disambiguation proposal, made _it_ less ambiguous, and put it in in a more logical place in the Records Rules. Added "USCF licensees" amendment as a alternative to "USA citizens." [Page 4] 5A (Medical control): amended as we discussed. Added amendment requested by my pious companions on the Legislation Committee. I did some further checking with a drug testing expert and learned that diuretics can mask steroids as well as other prohibited substances, so I added an amendment to your proposal to deal with that possibilitity. With your proposal as it stands, the right strategy for someone who took steroids and is tapped for a test is to either quickly ingest a diuretic or simply refuse to take the test. By doing so, he reduces the suspension from a year (or 2 years if the amendment passes) to either 3 or 6 months. What the rule _should_ do is assign the full steroid penalty unless the rider subsequently proves that (s)he didn't take steroids, in which case it should drop to 3 months. With my amendment, the minimum penalty for someone who takes diuretics is 3 months, which is a bit harsh for unintentional infractions, but I can't figure out a logically consistent way around that. [Page 5] 2D1 (Criterium): split in two and put first part in Consent Agenda. Amended the maximum distance part by removing "within plus or minus 10%" on the grounds that it is nonsensical -- if the formula for the maximum is 10% too low, it should be fixed. (My personal view, as I have said before, is that this is a pointless proposal. I have never seen a criterium that was too long; I have seen many that were too short.) 1D2 (Bad weather): I took the liberty of generalizing this addition to deal with both road and track races and put it in a more appropriate location: the Chief Referee's responsibilities (1H4). Bylaw L, Section 5 (Changes in Race permits): amended to show that adding events is permissible (as we discussed in Technical Commission meeting) and amended comments accordingly. Added change from "females" and "males" to "women" and "men" from the next item and refurbished paragraph (c) there (which the Technical Commission rejected but the Legislation Committee approved, unfortunately) as an amendment to Bylaw L, Section 3. [Page 6] Apppointment of officials: put G.3 and 1H4(d) on Consent, dropped 1H3 as we discussed. 1I1 (Spokes, covered spokes): used my earlier amendment for spoke covers. Made 16 spoke limit an amendment, as we discussed. [Page 7] I combined the stage race proposal from page 3 with the one on page 7 (which you should have combined and probably would have if you hadn't organize this stuff in such a hodge podge) then put the whole thing through a blender. It doesn't look the same, but I claim that it is all there in an understandable form. BTW, I claim that the definition of "amount of climbing" is defective. For example, in a 12-circuit road race with a 1,000 meter climb, the riders would climb 12,000 meters, but the proposed rule would assess that as a 1,000 meter climb. Enclosed is a copy of the USCF Constitution, By-laws, and General Rules that have been computer formatted. They are presented here in a large format suitable for photographic preparation of a printing master, but can readily be produced in various sizes and in various type fonts. The principal advantages of this procedure are as follows. .begin indent 3,8;preface 0; (a) The text can be repeatedly edited and corrected to remove typographical errors without having to retype it each time. [Page 8] (b) Revisions can be made more easily and with less liklihood of introducing errors. (c) Preparation costs for printing are reduced (especially since I'm doing this free). .end After semi-volunteering to do this some time ago, I actually started last month. Joan recently decided to learn touch-typing and, for practice, finished up the By-laws and entered the General Rules. In entering this material from the little green book, we corrected a few hundred typographical errors and probably introduced some new ones. We have also taken a few liberties: .begin indent 3,8;preface 0; nojust (a) some obviously incorrect or inconsistent punctuation has been changed, (b) a lot of capitalization has been changed where we found proper nouns not capitalized or (more often) ordinary nouns that were erroneously capitalized, (c) syntactic errors that could be corrected by the addition or deletion of a single letter (e.g. singular-plural transformations) have been fixed, (d) Section labels have been added to Article VIII of the Constitution, which had just numbered paragraphs in contrast with the rest of the Constitution and By-laws. .end continue Problems that would require more than this to fix have been left "as is", but many of these are noted in the accompanying Review. Overall, the spelling is rather good but the syntax often ranges from strained to awful and the logic is frequently worse. One thing that I was tempted to change is the inconsistent numbering scheme used in the General Rules. For example, the subdivisions of Rule 3.11 are numbered 3.111, 3.112, etc., while the subdivisions of Rule 3.21 are numbered 3.21a, 3.21b, etc. The choice between these two forms usually (not always!) appears to have been made on the basis of whether the parent section consists of text (first form) or just a title (second form). I regard this distinction as silly and confusing and would recommend using the number-letter form consistently. The computer representation has been set up in such a way that this switch can be made easily, provided that interested parties can be convinced. Since it is often rather hard to find all the parts that refer to a given topic, I recommend than an index to this material be added. The document compiler that I am using facilitates index construction, but quite a lot of analysis and judgement would be needed in choosing the index terms. If desired, I would be willing to work on such a project, but some outside review would be needed. Such an index should, I think, be treated as outside the regulations themselves. That is, it should be considered as an aid to the reader rather than as a product of the legislative process. I would welcome remarks on or criticism of points raised in the enclosure. .sgn .skip 2;turn on "

PDheader:1990-01-17 08:11:00-08:00 893beb665022eeba7c1f9f10f8f5756c ∂17-Jan-90 0811 shekita@cs.wisc.edu Re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 90 08:11:05 PST Received: from provolone.cs.wisc.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA08906; Wed, 17 Jan 90 08:11:30 -0800 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 10:11:16 -0600 From: shekita@cs.wisc.edu (E Shekita) Message-Id: <9001171611.AA01854@provolone.cs.wisc.edu> Received: by provolone.cs.wisc.edu; Wed, 17 Jan 90 10:11:16 -0600 To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1990Jan16.014945.15582@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <9540@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Cc:

I just worked up the courage to read rec.bicycles and the first message I'm confronted with is yours. Come on Les, cut me a little slack. That message I posted was never meant for public eyes. Do you mean to say you've never made a glib remark in private that would make you look like a fool if it was put on a platter for the world to disect? I've apologized to Jobst, and I certainly have a newfound respect for the man. He didn't say one nasty thing to me, not one!. I suggest we all try to follow his example. Her appeal has just been heard and was been denied. She is quite upset that she is to be suspended while her predecessors got off with a warning. I told her that they were just lucky, but she isn't buying it. I will review this matter carefully as soon as I get the jury report. BTW, the name of the other person that I couldn't remember is Doug Shapiro, who is getting a 2 year suspension and reportedly will retire. This should have been made public some time ago; Jerry says that it will be in Cycling USA, but it isn't apparent in a quick scan of the November issue. Gene

PDheader:1990-01-17 11:31:00-08:00 d7ddfb5b9e35d39fd44980d295ccee7f ∂17-Jan-90 1131 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu I shot an arrow Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 90 11:31:40 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA12097; Wed, 8 Nov 89 16:21:38 CST Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 16:22:31 CST id AA13775; Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:31:40 CST Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:30:55 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <8911082222.AA18939@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 89 16:22:31 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: More on drug busts

You could try to declare and emergency at the next BOD meeting (2nd grin in the same dame!) :) ...

PDheader:1990-01-17 14:07:00-08:00 4ff4b6a7359bc9103940b47e6b0dac23 ∂17-Jan-90 1407 LES re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France To: shekita@CS.WISC.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 17 Jan 90 10:11:16 -0600.]

I imagine that at the last BOD meeting the inadvertant useage stipulations were modified in any event. As we say at moments like this. GRIN. 8-) . Gene, Thanks for your message. Your followup had not yet appeared when I posted the response. It was, in fact, a play on words -- you may note that it paralleled the wording of your posting but reached an inverted conclusion. I am glad that you followed up fairly quickly and gracefully accepted responsibility. I confess that I was somewhat aggressive in my response because I had just finished reading and responding to your agist posting in misc.invest. -Les Earnest Phil. P.S. No, I really don't think that you are a dimwitted twit, or whatever I said, and am willing to state that publicly if it helps.

PDheader:1990-01-17 14:59:00-08:00 88bf4ecce704d134b334a7ef85e1ecf6 ∂17-Jan-90 1459 shekita@cs.wisc.edu re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France Received: from provolone.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.2.18]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 90 14:59:16 PST Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 16:59:25 -0600 From: shekita@cs.wisc.edu (E Shekita) Message-Id: <9001172259.AA02591@provolone.cs.wisc.edu> Received: by provolone.cs.wisc.edu; Wed, 17 Jan 90 16:59:25 -0600 To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Elvis (there is only one you know) sighted at 1990 Tour de France

> No, I really don't think that you are a dimwitted twit, or whatever I > said, and am willing to state that publicly if it helps. Let's just leave things the way they are. No hard feelings. In fact, maybe it was good for me to get publicly denounced. It gave me a greater appreciation of how I must have made poor Jobst feel. Yes, the warning clause has been deleted. I am particularly annoyed because after Catlin waffled I sent both our existing rules and the proposed amendments to him and Grice and invited comments. Catlin sent nothing back, as I expected, but Grice returned a detailed and helpful review that resulted in several improvements in the proposed amendments. Unfortunately, she didn't mention the 10 ug/ml threshold, so I had no basis for trying to save the warning clause. Grumble! Gene

PDheader:1990-01-17 16:41:00-08:00 30eabb0219ca0e0725b488da085e5042 ∂17-Jan-90 1641 LES re: I shot an arrow To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:30:55 CST.]

> I apologize for leaving the BOD meeting without exactly saying good-bye. > How did the remainder of the seance go? Yes, I was wondering what became of you. The rest of the session went about as usual. The Championship Subcommittee reported still another qualification procedure that included Harper's idiotic exemption for people in the armed services. I pointed out that that section was inconsistent with the qualification Bylaws and requested that it be dropped. The Board then voted down my request. At that point I staged a screaming fit and they eventually agreed to delete the offensive section just to shut me up. Of course, I expect it to reappear later. > I am of course most curious if a discussion arose on the > conflict-of-interest question. Beth was very worked up about the question > and was going to ***e you when the chance presented itself. (I leave it > to your mind to match mine with the right *** characters). Sorry, I have no idea of what you are talking about. Yes, you should see your rec.bicycles posting the next time you read that newsgroup. It hasn't reached here yet. I'll let you know if and when it does. What is the topic? Are you sure that you did a followup rather than a reply? The latter sends mail to the original poster, not the newsgroup. I remain dismayed at the naivete of the Board regarding the USPRO contract. I believe that it will turn out to be the costliest mistake in Federation history. Nevertheless, I think that I will let Richard take his bows in the limelight before exposing the mess. Unfortunately, he will then likely remove me from Legislation, but I no longer care that much.

PDheader:1990-01-24 16:11:00-08:00 b964867cf5b26700d919c700fd8a13da ∂24-Jan-90 1611 cdp!pyramid!ttidca!ttidca.TTI.COM!marvinm@labrea.stanford.edu Re: One-Day Car Ban Changes Milan's Look, Improves Air Quality Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 90 16:11:20 PST Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Wed, 24 Jan 90 14:27:14 PST Received: by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.61/OSx5.0-890710) id AA26161; Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:26:15 -0800 Received: by ctnews.Convergent.COM (smail2.5) id AA15454; 7 Dec 89 17:13:45 GMT (Thu) Received: by unix386.Convergent (5.51/4.7) id AA09549; Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:22:39 PST Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:22:39 PST From: unix386!bhilden@decwrl.dec.com (Bruce Hildenbrand) Message-Id: <8912071722.AA09549@unix386.Convergent> To: ctnews!pyramid!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!LES@decwrl.dec.com,

ctnews!pyramid!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!pyramid!ctnews!unix386!bhilden@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Re: NCL Yup! Peter O'Neil is pretty flaky. The magazine Velo-News has asked me to join up as their man inside(you know, spook stuff). A friend of mine at work's father used to be head coach of the L.A. Raiders(Tom Flores) who happened to be Peter O'Neil's former employers. I spoke with Tom about O'Neil and his most memorable comment was "get everything up front!"\λ Thanks for the info, I will keep you posted, Bruce

PDheader:1990-01-25 16:09:00-08:00 ad75a00e08260e33a06f38972e5a811e ∂25-Jan-90 1609 LES re: One-Day Car Ban Changes Milan's Look, Improves Air Quality To: marvinm@TTIDCA.TTI.COM [In reply to message sent Tue, 23 Jan 90 11:04:39 PST.]

Thanks for your note. Yes, I really don't expect L.A. to ban cars for a day any time soon, though I would love to see it happen. Regarding the problems with bikeways, I agree with you and my old friend John Forester that it makes little sense to have separate bikeways when there are roads around, but one of the main reasons that they are dangerous is that they must cross roads at odd locations and THAT is where a lot of accidents occur. If there were no cars, that problem would go away. Until this year, there has always been a non-racing USCF membership available, but Executive Director Jerry Lace requested that it be removed from the Bylaws and Schedule of Fees this year so that he could put a new program in place. Unfortunately, he seems to have dropped the ball by not announcing what it will be and what it costs. You might call or write to the USCF office to inquire about non-racing membership: Phone: 719 578-4581, ask for Jan Scholer Write to: Jerry Lace, Executive Director USCF Office 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Meanwhile, I will harass Lace about this.

PDheader:1990-01-26 15:53:00-08:00 7bef3e9c9d4bda3828fafe8159c904c0 ∂26-Jan-90 1553 cdp!pyramid!ttidca!ttidca.TTI.COM!marvinm@labrea.stanford.edu RE: safety of bikeways Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 90 15:53:39 PST Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 26 Jan 90 15:53:36 PST Received: by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.61/OSx5.0-890710) id AA25341; Fri, 26 Jan 90 12:20:04 -0800 Received: from ttidcb

by ttidca.TTI.COM (5.51/UUCP-Project/rel-1.0/12-09-86) id AA28785; Fri, 26 Jan 90 11:55:18 PST Received: by ttidcb.TTI.COM (5.51/UUCP-Project/rel-1.0/12-09-86) id AA20141; Fri, 26 Jan 90 11:55:13 PST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 11:55:13 PST From: Marvin Moskowitz <marvinm@ttidca.tti.com> Message-Id: <9001261955.AA20141@ttidcb.TTI.COM> To: LES@sail.stanford.edu Subject: RE: safety of bikeways > I heard that disk wheels were going to be legal in mass start races this > year. Can you verify this? Yes, I posted that in October. The change was made mainly to conform with UCI rules. >From what I see in news features , Palo ALto is cyclists' heaven, but you missed my point about bikeways. There are three types of bike routes in L.A. The first is some kind of arbitrary designation of bike routes on normal roads. Their only demarcation are signposts, with no special lanes. Secondly there are specially marked bike lanes on normal roads, usually coexisting with the parking lane; of dubious value. A sub-genre, not too common, is a bike lane that is demarked on both sides of the lane, thereby maing it wholly seperate from the parking lane. I like taking novice riders on these because they get the feeling of proximate traffic without having car doors open in their faces. The third type is the ones a believe Mr. Forrester was warning about. These are special bikeways built sperately from the road system. THe most popular of these is the South Bay Beach Bike path, 24 miles running through (NOT along) the beach. Besides the danger of sand, inexperienced, incompetent cyclists travel aloong this because they believe there is safety in the absence of cars. Between these jerks who don't know what side of the path to ride on, illegal skaters, and illegal sauntering pedestrians, I have had a wheel potato-chiped, by boss lost her front teeth (six jerks riding six abreast failed to yield her any method of passage) and I have heeard various other horror stories. The lesser known paths along the river/flood control channels, are safer because of the lack of incompetent cyclists, but I still agrre with your friend John that bicycles should use regualr road lanes and trust on the predictability of common behavior that is seen on the highways. ( As a sidebar, it's amazing how many people I know were taught in grade school by POLICE that you should ride in the opposite direction that the cars travel in. Although this is a wise pedestrian behavior on a highway without sidewalks, this is deadly behior for cyclists. THe behavior I see that is EVEN worse is cyclists not only traveling on the SIDEWALKS, but in the direction contrary to traffic. I wouldn't mind being the group beneficiary on all of their life insurance policies). Anyways, I'm rambling much too long, and thanks again for your efforts on behalf of us all; I'll check into the non-racing membership. *Marvin S. Moskowitz * *Citicorp/TTI * *3100 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450 9111 x3197 * *Path:{philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!marvinm or marvinm@ttidca.tti.com *

PDheader:1990-01-26 17:05:00-08:00 b8ed37edf02776995750258d7400daf0 ∂26-Jan-90 1705 LES re: safety of bikeways To: marvinm@TTIDCA.TTI.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 26 Jan 90 11:55:13 PST.]

> The most popular of these is the South Bay Beach Bike path, 24 miles > running through (NOT along) the beach. Besides the danger of sand, > inexperienced, incompetent cyclists travel aloong this because they believe > there is safety in the absence of cars. Between these jerks who don't know . . . All true, but that route has something else going for it, at least in the Summer: outstanding scenery. I usually include it in my periodic rides from here to San Diego and usually miss a few turns while trying to both ride and ogle -- I wish it were not so twisty. There ARE other considerations besides safety, after all. > Could this be the reason insurance premiums have taken off again? That route is lots better than it used to be, by the way, during the skating craze of the late '70s. Certainly not. Furthermore, the many people who think that this is a dangerous rule change obviously haven't thought it through -- people are unlikely to use disks in situations where they are unsafe for the simple reason that it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Nevertheless, I expect that we will see a few dimwits try disk wheels in a massed start race on a windy day before they figure this out. Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-02-09 09:44:00-08:00 4812a993d2e1d85ae6b232a164e5ac18 ∂09-Feb-90 0944 varvel@cs.utexas.edu Re: Masters Nationals conclude with Lea victory Received: from cs.utexas.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 90 09:44:51 PST Received: from cypress.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.49) id AA17573; Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:45:19 CST Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:42:05 CST From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:42:05 CST Message-Id: <9002091742.AA15714@cypress.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by cypress.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.4-Client) id AA15714; Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:42:05 CST To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU Subject: Re: Masters Nationals conclude with Lea victory Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <GgQ7$@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Cc:

Since I don't pay much attention to bicycle racing politics (other than reading your postings), I'm not sure what the point was here. That doesn't keep me from commenting, though. The American Contract Bridge League has ``Seniors Only'' tournaments where master points are awarded the same as at open tournaments. This probably doesn't make much difference, since the average age in the ACBL is about 55. It does offend some of us younger players, though. (I'm 42. For a bridge player, that's young.) Points should only be awarded for open competitions, unless there is to be a new rank called, for instance, ``doddering master''. Similarly, I think that any profits from ``veterans'' bicycle racing (and there _should be some_) should be funnelled into junior racing. It only makes sense for the preservation of the sport. -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

PDheader:1990-02-09 12:31:00-08:00 ac25858ce66e7cc048f49a5616005ffa ∂09-Feb-90 1231 LES re: Masters Nationals conclude with Lea victory To: varvel@CS.UTEXAS.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:42:05 CST.]

> Points should only be awarded for open competitions, unless there is to be > a new rank called, for instance, ``doddering master''. I agree, and USCF currently recognizes upgrading points only from open competition. > Similarly, I think that any profits from ``veterans'' bicycle > racing (and there _should be some_) should be funnelled into > junior racing. In effect, this is what is being done -- juniors get many more coaching clinics per capita and special competition sponsored both by USCF and U.S. Olympic Committee. Incidentally, the main point of that satire, which I didn't write, is that the current USCF Masters Committee is persistently trying to subdivide age groups to the point of absurdity -- there are now a number of national championships for which no one shows up and others with only 2 or 3 competitors. -Les

PDheader:1990-02-13 08:22:00-08:00 58b83cef1ab350e4156407015e33e800 ∂13-Feb-90 0822 intran!lightning!dick@uunet.UU.NET Re: The epicycles of USPRO [Part 4 of 4]: How do we get there from here? Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 90 08:22:13 PST Received: from uunet.UU.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA11302; Tue, 13 Feb 90 08:22:02 -0800 Received: from intran.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA21879; Tue, 13 Feb 90 11:21:29 -0500 Received: from lightning. by (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA00612; Mon, 12 Feb 90 16:06:22 CST Received: from hawk. by lightning. (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA00425; Mon, 12 Feb 90 22:06:21 GMT Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 22:06:21 GMT From: intran!lightning!dick@uunet.UU.NET (Dick Anderson) Message-Id: <9002122206.AA00425@lightning.> Received: by hawk. (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA00379; Mon, 12 Feb 90 16:06:18 CST To: uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: The epicycles of USPRO [Part 4 of 4]: How do we get there from here? In-Reply-To: your article <1990Feb8.122137.17270@Neon.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: lightning!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!neon!news

I agree that as a financial investment, the money invested in USPRO is foolhearty at best. However, if the USCF has a mandate to help develop professional cycling, then I think that spending $100,000 on USPRO will reap greater benefits than trying to do it by themselves. There may be other returns on this $100,000 investment in the form of a better level of pro racing, which would trickle down to the amatuer ranks. Personally, I don't mind seeing some of my USCF liscence fee go to help establish professional racing.

PDheader:1990-02-13 11:44:00-08:00 22096061c7f4bf6b2159c9aedc3930a4 ∂13-Feb-90 1144 LES re: The epicycles of USPRO [Part 4 of 4]: How do we get there from here? To: intran!lightning!dick@UUNET.UU.NET [In reply to message sent Mon, 12 Feb 90 22:06:21 GMT.]

Yes, but how does having two governing bodies help the development of professional cycling? I note that in most of the world, especially in countries that have a successful professional racing program, there is just one cycling governing body in each country.

PDheader:1990-02-16 12:11:00-08:00 efa70644b35e74e04b25453709002ba2 ∂16-Feb-90 1211 @Neon.Stanford.EDU:seligman@farlow.Stanford.EDU Re: Bicycles, traffic rules and harassment by cars... Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 90 12:11:07 PST Received: from Neon.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA27355; Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:10:53 -0800 Received: from Farlow.Stanford.EDU by Neon.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA20406; Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:12:05 -0800 Message-Id: <9002162012.AA20406@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Received: by farlow; Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:11:31 pst To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Cc: seligman@farlow.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Bicycles, traffic rules and harassment by cars... In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 15 Feb 90 18:50:43 -0800.

<9002160250.AA21218@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:11:28 -0800 From: Scott Seligman <seligman@farlow.Stanford.EDU> >If so, why are you seeking a definition of "practicable," given that >it is thoroughly defined in the cited section? I disagree that it is "thoroughly defined". The wording of the VC contradicts that presumption. The definition is implicit and exceptions are listed: "... as close as practicable ... except ... When reasonably necessary ..." A defense against a citation for 21202 could involve EITHER a demonstration that your actions were excluded under the "except" clauses OR a demonstration that your actions were "practicable" under some definition such as "reasonable". I agree that this is a ridiculous distinction, but I'm not convinced that the distinction would not be recognized in court. Then again, I admit to having very little courtroom experience and no legal training. I'm just paying attention to the details, something that I thought you would respect (what's that saying about god's address? :-) Scott

PDheader:1990-02-16 15:54:00-08:00 f066e7b850b58d069bf5cf7539ec3663 ∂16-Feb-90 1554 LES re: Bicycles, traffic rules and harassment by cars... To: seligman@FARLOW.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:11:28 -0800.]

You say: > I disagree that it is "thoroughly defined". The wording of the VC > contradicts that presumption. The definition is implicit and exceptions > are listed: > "... as close as practicable ... except ... When reasonably necessary ..." Technically you are correct, but the exceptions, especially the "When reasonably necessary" statement open enough loopholes to cover any practical situation that you may need. In other words, there appears to be no point in haggling over the meaning of "practicable" when you can use a "reasonable necessity" argument. The latter covers all the interesting situations that I can think of. > . . . Then again, I admit to having very little courtroom experience > and no legal training. I've been to court more times than I would have liked, but believe that legal training has little to do with the ability to express or understand English, especially legal English. For example, some of the worst-written regulations ever adopted by the USCF were written by lawyers (e.g. the helmet safety rule adopted in 1986). The only thing worse that that was a bunch of stuff written by pseudo-lawyers -- people who think that rules are made better by using stilted phraseology and cryptic, undefined terms spiced with a little legal jargon. > I'm just paying attention to the details, something that I thought > you would respect I certainly do, and apologize if I seemed to be picking on you. When I saw your original posting, I thought that you had not noticed the list of exceptions. -Les

PDheader:1990-02-16 18:24:00-08:00 bd51191cdf831135e70ad2ebf3b8fb86 ∂16-Feb-90 1824 jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Roger Marquis Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 90 18:24:24 PST Received: from hplms1.hpl.hp.com by hplms2.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (15.11.1.3/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA20521; Fri, 16 Feb 90 18:24:59 pst Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Fri, 16 Feb 90 18:24:42 pst Date: 16 Feb 90 14:38 -0800 Subject: Roger Marquis Message-Id: <30830466.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 16 Feb 90 17:45:56-PST (Fri)

Have you been following "Cannondale" etc? Roger is on a streak of "Proof by assertion" and "proof by miles ridden" although I am not sure whether he has ridden too much. You are close to the USCF. Do you understand how he got to be a functionaire with his attitude? What gives? jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com

PDheader:1990-02-16 18:56:00-08:00 f7af4228f01d870d49a338ca8e4842f2 ∂16-Feb-90 1856 LES re: Roger Marquis To: jobst_brandt%40@HP1900.DESK.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 16 Feb 90 14:38 -0800.]

Yes, I was tempted to stick him after seeing that posting, but I thought I would leave the pleasure to you. > Do you understand how he got to be a functionaire with his attitude? > What gives? Essentially, nobody else applied for the local coaching job and he was appointed before I heard about it. I told the guy who appointed him (Chuck Wells) that he had made a big mistake, but it was too late to do much about it at that point. I just hope that he doesn't do too much harm before they accumulate enough evidence to get rid of him. -Les

PDheader:1990-02-21 09:40:00-08:00 8fd84de63f4d4fc6dff12475f9447d11 ∂21-Feb-90 0940 euatdt%euas17.ericsson.se@ericom.ericsson.se A hitch-hiker on your tandem! Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 90 09:40:36 PST Received: from sunic.sunet.se by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA18750; Wed, 21 Feb 90 09:40:08 -0800 Received: by sunic.sunet.se (5.61+IDA/KTH/LTH/1.117) id AAsunic24411; Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:40:52 +0100 Received: from euas17.ericsson.se by ericom.ericsson.se (4.1/SMI-4.0-ERICOM1.4 ) id AA07877; Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:21:44 +0100 Received: from euas17c10.ericsson.se by euas17.ericsson.se (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA06430; Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:21:57 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:21:57 +0100 From: euatdt@euas17.ericsson.se (Torsten Lif) Message-Id: <9002211721.AA06430@euas17.ericsson.se> Received: by euas17c10.ericsson.se (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA04142; Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:21:44 +0100 To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: A hitch-hiker on your tandem! Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1990Feb16.033214.4638@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <30789958.1099836.243.4@HP1900UX.HPDESK> <3647@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden Cc: euatdt@euas17.ericsson.se

In article <1990Feb16.033214.4638@Neon.Stanford.EDU> you write: > >I had some experience with this problem awhile back when I undertook a >ride from Canada to Mexico along the West Coast and my partner's >Achilles tendon gave out in Tillamook, Oregon. I continued alone >despite the inevitable silly remarks from people along the road, >especially kids. I was fortunate to pick up a hitchhiker for part of >the trip, which helped me get through the many climbs and descents of >Southern Oregon and Northern California. It was an enjoyable >experience, even when peddling that beast over passes by myself. A Hitch-hiker?! This sounds almost too good to be true! How did the hitch-hiker react when you stopped? I take it you rode quite a long distance together so you must have been very lucky to find a partner both willing and able to manage it. Sounds like great story stuff to me, care to share it with the net? -- Torsten Lif (formerly Dahlkvist) ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788

PDheader:1990-02-21 14:56:00-08:00 003f787d9685bf896c4f9fd8b647bf24 ∂21-Feb-90 1456 LES re: A hitch-hiker on your tandem! To: euatdt@EUAS17.ERICSSON.SE

The hitchhiker stuck out his thumb in jest, but I decided to take him seriously. As it turned out, he was also a cyclist and was a great help. We rode for a full day, covering about 130 miles (209 km.), before reaching his destination. -Les

PDheader:1990-02-22 12:25:00-08:00 c669b2b4e0a7106dfda8976e9c5d0b6c ∂22-Feb-90 1225 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Disc shell game Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 90 12:24:51 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA25836; Thu, 22 Feb 90 14:25:18 CST Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 14:24:26 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <9002222024.AA06002@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 90 14:24:26 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Disc shell game

Hi, good to hear that you are still alive and picking, I haven't died either. I suspect that the nobody has convinced anyone in the UCI that there is much of an issue here. If I would speculate in the past it was because the acceptance of Moser's record (via a congratulatory message from it's executives) had the effect of taking the issue out of the technical commission. Relieved (but vexed) of the problem, I suspect that the TC simply didn't want to brood further about the subtleties and nuances. Besides there were other weirder things to look at. What else is new or old?

PDheader:1990-02-22 14:46:00-08:00 2f04b75275b99cf2a3722d18ac72167b ∂22-Feb-90 1446 LES re: Disc shell game To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 22 Feb 90 14:24:26 CST.]

Thanks for your perspective. However, I am ill-equipped to accept such irrational policies or to let them rest, as you know. Otherwise, I am plotting to lynch the politically-astute-but-crooked Mayor of Los Altos Hills and am trying to figure out if it is worthwhile running for City Council. I am not all that interested in city government, nor am I very politic, but somebody has to straighten out the local mess and nobody else has volunteered yet -- we are all standing in a circle saying "Why don't *you* do it!"

PDheader:1990-02-27 10:22:00-08:00 070da1e3ecb33e5de5b4a187be1b41fe ∂27-Feb-90 1022 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Len Prehiem vs ? Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 90 10:22:03 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA22415; Tue, 27 Feb 90 12:22:32 CST Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 12:21:13 CST Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 90 12:21:13 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Len Prehiem vs ? Message-Id: <Q5EAC51C@odin>

Lenny Preheim called me the other day, and I guess that he has talked to you too. Now it seems as though (?) is threatening to suspend his newly formed Metro district association for apparently having member clubs outside the actual New York District. Have I got any of this straight? What are the real issues - I assume that there must be another side to this story other than Lenny's. It seems though from talking to him that the District Rep is failing to keep an arms' length distance from promotional activities. Anyway suspending is certainly an oddball way for (?) to deal with Lenny. Curious ...

PDheader:1990-02-27 10:49:00-08:00 f62405bbe2dc782334db823efdf3d217 ∂27-Feb-90 1049 LES re: Len Prehiem vs ? To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 27 Feb 90 12:21:13 CST.]

Yes, Len is alleging that Preston Handy, the District Rep, is financially involved with the competing district association, but there appears to be no hard evidence and Handy denies it, according to Andy B. Andy and Mark Hodges asserted that district associations can have member clubs from only one district, but I pointed out that the Rule Book says no such thing, not to mention the long standing precedent of the New England Cycling Association, or whatever it's called. Hodges is apparently talking about flying to New York to preside at a shotgun wedding between the two associations. I strongly suggested to Andy that they mind their own business. Perhaps I should say that to Mark too.

PDheader:1990-02-27 11:47:00-08:00 951065fa82194e3264ddc69002651e51 ∂27-Feb-90 1147 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: re: Len Prehiem vs ? Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 90 11:47:27 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA23878; Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:48:03 CST Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:46:43 CST Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:46:43 CST From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: re: Len Prehiem vs ? Message-Id: <Q5EAD926@odin> In-Reply-To: <h0YQF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

Your advice to Hodges is sound setting aside my skepticism of Mark's negotiation ability in the midst of hostile camps. New York cycling politics is such a tar baby. On the other hand, my usual approach of letting the sons-of-cyclists deal with their own problems doesn't much resolve things like this. I just reread this, and it sounds like something Brain Geddes would say. That's not a bad thing, I rather liked what he said and how he said it. Cheers.

PDheader:1990-02-27 19:04:00-08:00 66433373bd8bf7fa5a93ff741f08502f ∂27-Feb-90 1904 LES re: re: Len Prehiem vs ? To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:46:43 CST.]

> I just reread this, and it sounds like something Brain Geddes would say. > That's not a bad thing, I rather liked what he said and how he said it. If you are talking about his non-confrontational verbal style, I agree. If you are referring to his writing style, I disagree -- he wrote some of the worst legislation I have seen, and I have seen a lot.

PDheader:1990-03-02 02:06:00-08:00 32202ce49566d1be2dd811dcfa484d80 ∂02-Mar-90 0206 LES re: re: Len Prehiem vs ? To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

The compromise that finally came down today is that the existing race permit that that had been issued to the apparently phoney district association has been revoked and a new one is being issued to Century Road Club, which is part of Len's MDA. Len is still bent out of shape, but it looks as though the races will be competently organized and Len has a chance to negotiate a further takover. The most embarrassing part of this incident is that I found myself arguing on the same side as Ernie. Gave me pause. BTW, I lost a local political debate this evening and as a consequence am running for City Council.

PDheader:1990-03-02 08:04:00-08:00 f7d95c3d82dbdd0199c1ea354b3c94a9 ∂02-Mar-90 0804 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: re: Len Prehiem vs ? Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 90 08:04:48 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA16228; Fri, 2 Mar 90 10:05:25 CST Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 10:05:28 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <9003021605.AA03827@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 2 Mar 90 10:05:28 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: re: Len Prehiem vs ?

Why do you persist in throwing caution to the winds (wink)? Good luck to the city in your candidacy for public office.

PDheader:1990-03-07 00:11:00-08:00 8c4b31111aa0bca09e7b010e0ffcab13 ∂07-Mar-90 0011 gsb@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM Re: Future Bicycles Received: from ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM ([128.81.41.109]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 90 00:10:54 PST Received: from GANG-GANG.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 384797; 7 Mar 90 02:42:34 EST Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 02:42 EST From: Glenn S. Burke <gsb@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Subject: Re: Future Bicycles To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <19900307074231.4.GSB@GANG-GANG.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

From: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Subject: Re: Future Bicycles Date: 6 Mar 90 22:49:00 GMT Tom Reingold writes: > I agree with Jobst. There aren't a lot of advances needed in most > cases. . . . > Contrast that with electronics-based industries. You can't > realistically expect to compete if you use a 10-year-old computer. On the contrary, I am at this moment "competing" on a 25-year-old computer that includes some "modern" components dating from 1975 and a number of amenities that are not available on newer machines. For example, if I have a long-running job, I can switch my display to television and wait for it to beep me when it is finished. Also, I can do an edit while following the Tour de France (there are only two, you know) by keeping the audio on. Returning to live action takes just two keystrokes. Does your 25-year-old computer also have the rotting-foam problem like my (well, MIT's but it was my baby) old KA-10 did? Admittedly, this is drifting off the subject a bit. -Les Earnest (Les@Sail.Stanford.edu) Hey, most these guys probably think that multi-process timesharing was a Unix innovation. Certainly transparent network access was. I had a novel experience of visiting Apollo once with a company (now defunct) that was going to make a real high-end ai product that would put Apollo onto the map for such things. There was this real young, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, un*x-oriented youngster there who was telling us about all these nifty things they had done (with the decided implication that they were new and novel). One of the apollo people there was an older man who had been one of the early Multics people, I believe. He looked like he had regular cerebral aneurisms listening to this tripe. Most of us were not actually impressed since of the three technical people who went, two were tenex/interlisp/bbn-oids, and one (me) was from mit-ai/lcs-land.

PDheader:1990-03-07 12:40:00-08:00 37244b3068b9b9263f9a8f968d127e3c ∂07-Mar-90 1240 LES re: Future Bicycles To: gsb@ALDERAAN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM [In reply to message sent Wed, 7 Mar 90 02:42 EST.]

> Does your 25-year-old computer also have the rotting-foam problem like > my (well, MIT's but it was my baby) old KA-10 did? Actually, the 25-year-old parts are left over from the PDP-6, the main parts of which we gave to the Computer Museum there a few years ago. They are all in good shape. We still have the KA-10 in addition to the KL-10, but I haven't noticed any rotting foam. I too have run into a number of people, especially Berzerkely types, who believe that the world began (and will end) with Unix. Of course, they don't know about anything else.

PDheader:1990-03-10 14:36:00-08:00 ebc6fb6bfb6c75b34813724acc67f0d4 ∂10-Mar-90 1436 czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu racing rules Received: from ub.d.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 90 14:35:52 PST Received: by ub.d.umn.edu (5.59/UMD-891211) id AA07047; Sat, 10 Mar 90 16:37:31 CST From: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky) Message-Id: <9003102237.AA07047@ub.d.umn.edu> Subject: racing rules To: les@sail.stanford.edu Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 16:37:29 CDT X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.1 PL1]

Les: I am not at all familiar with the organizations that deal with racing and rumor has it that your are, if you know what I mean. Recently, someone said that fat tubed bikes are not allowed in many races. If so, what rule does it violate and why is that rule in effect? If not, please enlighten me. thanks, craig zwicky czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu

PDheader:1990-03-10 21:09:00-08:00 2874e14dc382c9143d2419b7d1d15377 ∂10-Mar-90 2109 LES re: racing rules To: czwicky@UB.D.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Sat, 10 Mar 90 16:37:29 CDT.]

Craig, You say: > Recently, someone said that fat tubed bikes are not allowed > in many races. If so, what rule does it violate and why is that rule > in effect? There is no such rule -- any kind of tire is permitted. Of course, in most races, users of such bikes would be at a disadvantage because of the weight penalty and slightly greater air drag. In case you are not aware, there is another rules expert in your neighborhood: Phil Voxland, whose phone at UMN is 625-8556 and whose email address is Voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-03-12 07:53:00-08:00 12947f6b48fe39f20ba68b374c29169c ∂12-Mar-90 0753 czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu re: racing rules Received: from ub.d.umn.edu ([131.212.32.6]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 90 07:53:01 PST Received: by ub.d.umn.edu (5.59/UMD-891211) id AA02435; Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:54:48 CST From: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky) Message-Id: <9003121554.AA02435@ub.d.umn.edu> Subject: re: racing rules To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 9:54:47 CDT In-Reply-To: <d7bUg@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>; from "Les Earnest" at Mar 10, 90 2109 X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.1 PL1]

> > [In reply to message sent Sat, 10 Mar 90 16:37:29 CDT.] > > > There is no such rule -- any kind of tire is permitted. Of course, in > most races, users of such bikes would be at a disadvantage because of > the weight penalty and slightly greater air drag. > Oops, didn't make myself clear, I meant fat aluminum tubed bikes, not tires. I understand (being a mtn. biker myself) how using big tubed tires would cause problems. This question was a result of the Cannondale/twit brouhaha recently. sorry 'bout the misunderstanding. c zwicky

PDheader:1990-03-12 12:31:00-08:00 b99b12d52e22566740d7ad8567cd9849 ∂12-Mar-90 1231 LES re: racing rules To: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu

Ah yes, USCF has no rules on frame tube size but UCI does. Their intention was to prohibit fairings, so they _should_ have specified a maximum ratio of wide-diameter to narrow-diameter. Instead they stupidly specified a maximum tube diameter. This is typical of the UCI Technical Commission, which appears to have no engineers -- just former bike mechanics. -Les

PDheader:1990-03-14 03:15:00-08:00 4eb80d04d0833d5db535d1c84c75b588 ∂14-Mar-90 0315 sjc@parsons.key.com Re: rec.bicycles.lawyer-jokes Received: from apple.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 90 03:15:36 PST Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef) id AA05314; Wed, 14 Mar 90 03:10:45 -0800

for Received: by amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.2) id <m0h8Vy0-00002ZC@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 90 02:52 PST Received: from parsons.key.com by key.key.COM (4.0/smail2.5/02-02-89) id AA23232; Tue, 13 Mar 90 17:58:54 PST Received: by parsons.key.com (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA13143; Tue, 13 Mar 90 17:58:44 PST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 17:58:44 PST From: sjc@parsons.key.com (Steve Correll) Message-Id: <9003140158.AA13143@parsons.key.com> To: les@sail.stanford.edu, les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Re: rec.bicycles.lawyer-jokes > I have been complaining about this to the burgeoning USCF bureaucracy > for over a year, to no avail. Before signing, I suggest that you > cross out and initial portions that are inappropriate or ludicrous. > However, I decline to get involved in the argument that is likely to > result. That's exactly what I did. I promise not to blame it on you. Thanks for the info, and good luck with both the bureaucracy and any organizational indigestion that may eventually result from the USPRO deal.

PDheader:1990-03-16 01:30:00-08:00 183938ca6d658180233a268ba948faae ∂16-Mar-90 0130 LES Growth of graft To: Voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

I regret to report that the level of corruption in the Board seems to be headed substantially upward now. I received a tip that Fraysse and Beal had received "honorariums" recently, so I called Jerry Lace for verification. He was very evasive and neither confirmed nor denied it, but said that they were "thinking about" doing something like that. I then called Richard, who acknowledged that at the Executive Committee meeting earlier this month Jerry had requested a "Bylaw interpretation" on the question of whether honorariums can be paid to Board members. He said that the Committee expressed approval of this practice. Richard said that he was pretty sure that Fraysse was paid last year for his work on the Trump Tour. Of course, all of this has been kept secret from the Board, even though they have met twice since the Trump. My personal view is that the Board can decide to grant honorariums to Board members, but it should never be done by less than the full Board, because any other arrangement will certainly lead to graft. In fact, it appears that decisions about who got honorariums so far have been made by staff and it appears that Mark Hodges set up the program. That arrangment will inevitably lead to mutual back scratching. I also discovered that Connie Carpenter continued her employment as Junior Women's coach long after she accepted her seat on the Board. She has just now resigned, not because it was illegal under USCF Bylaws but because she is pregnant. I plan to talk to her about this, to find out if she was aware of the conflict. Jerry was certainly aware of it and should have done something about it. I guess that I should make a fuss about this internally (i.e. to the Board) before taking it outside, but the next opportunity to actually do something about it will not be till late September, when I can put it on the legislative agenda, but I'm not even certain they will do anything then. One thing that you can be sure that they will NOT do is require that the "honorariums" paid up to that point be returned. In fact, if Jerry and Mark work fast, they may be able to bribe enough votes by then to block any action. Shit!

PDheader:1990-03-16 08:32:00-08:00 0e0c8c0aacd63386c1f908f06e0d4687 ∂16-Mar-90 0832 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: Growth of graft Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 90 08:31:35 PST Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA04313; Fri, 16 Mar 90 10:32:15 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 12:32:53 CST From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <9003161832.AA03269@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 16 Mar 90 12:32:53 CST To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Growth of graft

I heard some whisperings just this morning about this issue, but no details. Of course, Fraysse could certainly be paid by the Trump organization for whatever services they could imagine are valuable ... it certainly would be odd, however, for Mike to receive anything from the Federation for services rendered on behalf of a private promotion. Strategically, I might suggest a tactic such as the following: Have a member of the Federation (club) and a member of the board (?) demand a full accounting of all expenses paid to Board members and board member-controlled organization IN EXCESS of reciepts and per diems. All the board is on the hook for per diems (eg when I am abroad I guess the rate is $30 per day) so that wouldn't be much of a filter. As a result of such a request you would expect to find Beth prominantly mentioned (for teaching the Category A seminar) and possibly other official/board members for other seminar instruction? I would expect the member (club) request to be stonewalled and the board member request to be postponed. Ultimately, a request from a board member can't be denied, and possibly this is true of a corporation member too though I'm fuzzier on that. Oh, hmmm, I guess there are other Board member officials who would get fingered too - Dean Crandall for example - in appointments that are made by the board for National Championship officiating. Those aren't honorariums exactly - the fees are well set in the by-laws, but of course those appointments aren't made in a vacuum. That is, even there is a feeling in the Technical Commission of the moment that so-and-so isn't all that up to speed, there is always a nagging realization that there will be future agonies when a Board member isn't given some appointments. Oh, Les, I can tell you that the Board as a whole doesn't see this as a problem at all - that was clear enough at the last BOD meeting I was at I'd say you couldn't count 5 members who would side with you on a vote even if it were held now. I guess it really is true that that large majority don't see self-dealing (?) like that as unethical or compromising at all. Far from it, it's almost seen as reasonable given their presumed expertise, experience, and service. Does this mean that strategically it's best to wait a long time before opening up the issue. Probably not.

PDheader:1990-03-22 22:16:00-08:00 aee30ceec88aefb1bf6a89cc1f62bb1d ∂22-Mar-90 2216 pardo@cs.washington.edu Re: rain --> more flats? Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 90 22:16:25 PST Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA26989; Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:15:31 -0800 Received: by june.cs.washington.edu (5.61/7.0jh) id AA13694; Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:17:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:17:11 -0800 From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Return-Path: <pardo@cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <9003230617.AA13694@june.cs.washington.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: rain --> more flats? Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1990Mar19.213927.3434@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <1990Mar19.141252.24607@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Cc:

In article <1990Mar19.213927.3434@Neon.Stanford.EDU> you write: >[Pothole, rain, crash] David Gordon Wilson has a front wheel off of one of his recumbents that is all mushed up. He was riding to work one morning and hit a pothole much like the one that you hit. The bike stopped more or less instantly. Because he was sitting down/lying back, the sudden stopping of the bike simply snapped him in to an upright position. His reflexes took over, and milliseconds later, he was *running* down the street, wondering what just happened (!). ;-D oN ( Talk about your flat tires... ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo

PDheader:1990-03-23 18:00:00-08:00 92461e14834f66769097963d5b067439 ∂23-Mar-90 1800 LES re: rain --> more flats? To: pardo@CS.WASHINGTON.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:17:11 -0800.]

You say: > Because he was sitting down/lying back, the sudden stopping of the bike > simply snapped him in to an upright position. His reflexes took over, and > milliseconds later, he was *running* down the street, wondering what just > happened (!). Interesting; sounds as though he avoided getting banged up by getting banged up! Or is it knocked up? -Les

PDheader:1990-03-24 23:44:00-08:00 fcb57d5d03aa483699eec3acb02392ea ∂24-Mar-90 2344 pardo@cs.washington.edu Re: rain --> more flats? Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Mar 90 23:44:00 PST Received: from localhost by june.cs.washington.edu (5.61/7.0jh) id AA24552; Sat, 24 Mar 90 23:44:51 -0800 Return-Path: <pardo@cs.washington.edu> Message-Id: <9003250744.AA24552@june.cs.washington.edu> To: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: rain --> more flats? In-Reply-To: Your message of 23 Mar 90 18:00:00 -0800.

<vtue8@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 23:44:50 PST From: pardo@cs.washington.edu <pardo@cs.washington.edu> > [In reply to message sent Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:17:11 -0800.] > > You say: > > Because he was sitting down/lying back, the sudden stopping of the bike > > simply snapped him in to an upright position. His reflexes took over, and > > milliseconds later, he was *running* down the street, wondering what just > > happened (!). > > Interesting; sounds as though he avoided getting banged up by getting banged up! > Or is it knocked up? Well, at least he wasn't wheelsucking :-) ;-D oN ( "The Erotic Bicycle" ) Pardo

PDheader:1990-03-31 23:05:00-08:00 37fb73d3d2015739c9a7bcc10646b90d ∂31-Mar-90 2305 well!tsmith@apple.com Bullshit Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Mar 90 23:05:14 PST Received: from apple.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA06959; Sat, 31 Mar 90 23:04:08 -0800 Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef) id AA15400; Sat, 31 Mar 90 23:00:58 -0800

for Received: by well.sf.ca.us (4.12/4.7) id AA08468; Sat, 31 Mar 90 22:17:33 pst Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 22:17:33 pst From: well!tsmith@apple.com (Timothy S. Smith) Message-Id: <9004010617.AA08468@well.sf.ca.us> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: Bullshit > Cathy Foulston writes: > >Some of these semi-flames sound as if the posters feel LeMond has let > >them down personally. As if he owes them something. > > Exactly. Those self-indulgent fantasies were composed of the same > stuff that pollutes late night sports talk radio programs. I tried to > ignore them in the hope that such rantings will not catch on in this > forum. If they do, I will advocate spinning off another newsgroup > called rec.bicycle.bullshit. Really. I would have thought that rec.bicycles.bullshit should be reserved for the self-indulgent and self-serving political polemics about the USCF that you "pollute" (to borrow a phrase) this group with from time to time. But I haven't noticed that they generate much interest, so let's not bother.

PDheader:1990-04-09 13:19:00-07:00 790ba89b39d7265295ec2219deb71522 ∂09-Apr-90 1319 LES Parking To: HK.JPF@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU

I am pleased to see that the Committee on Parking and Transportation is finally taking an interest in encouraging the use of bicycles for commuting. Unfortunately the existing University policies, including those of the the Planning Office, are not consistent with that goal. I wrote a report to the administration on this issue about four years ago and will summarize the main issues again here. Incidentally, I commuted to Stanford by bicycle from 1973 through 1988 and still retain a bike locker in back of Margaret Jacks Hall though I am now officially retired. That locker symbolizes one of the problems with current policies: lockers are essential to the encouragement of bicycle commuting, but the University provides none and actively discourages others from filling this need. The heavy, inexpensive bikes that are used by most people to get around campus don't need much protection and ordinary bike racks provide suitable storage. Off campus commuters, on the other hand, generally favor lighter bikes that are both expensive and vulnerable to vandalism. Some bring these bikes into their offices, but that is not practical if they have a small office. Bike lockers provide a much better solution. The lockers in back of Jacks Hall were purchased around 1983 by a food coop in the Computer Science Department called the Prancing Pony. They have been rented ever since and paid back the initial investment in about four years. When the area in which they are located was redeveloped several years ago, the Planning Office tried to get us to permanently remove the lockers. When we objected to their removal, they were included in the redevlopment plan but we were informed that when Computer Science moves to a new building in the Near West campus, the lockers will be eliminated. In my opinion, the Planning Office should be finding ways to put more bike lockers on campus. While it is probably cheaper to buy mass-produced stand-alone lockers, it would look better to incorporate the lockers into the external walls of buildings, or at least to abut them. Potential bicycle commuters who do not have a safe place to store their bikes are likely to continue driving their cars as long as the University provides suitable automobile parking but no safe place for a bike. Bicycle Beltway Another way to enhance the usefulness of bicycles on campus would be to build a fast circumferential bike path around the central campus so that people riding bicycles and mopeds can quickly get to a point near their destination without having to weave through hordes of pedestrians. Such a beltway should avoid pedestrian malls and should be set up to give preferential right of way to cyclists. Within the central campus, I favor establishing conditional speed limits -- for example, no one permitted to come within a yard of a pedestrian while going faster than 5 MPH. It would likely be necessary to hire some bicycle police (e.g. students) to enforce these regulations. I also favor enforcement of bicycle parking regulations. People who park in walkways and building entrances should be fined. I have some ideas on how this could be implemented. I plan to show up at your Tuesday meeting to push these ideas. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-04-12 21:21:00-07:00 8ff5f6ed493ae0e7da353895a044a7de ∂12-Apr-90 2121 @po3.andrew.cmu.edu:sg1q+@andrew.cmu.edu Re: Ilana's progress report Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 90 21:20:57 PDT Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA28980; Thu, 12 Apr 90 21:22:13 -0700 Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06026> for les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu; Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:47 EDT Received: via switchmail; Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dryden.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail

ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.Ia9JD1600Xo740MUls>; Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dryden.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr12/sg1q/.Outgoing/QF.Aa9JCuu00Xo7MGs2RB>; Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Messages.7.8.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.dryden.andrew.cmu.edu.rt.r3 via MS.5.6.dryden.andrew.cmu.edu.rt_r3; Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <ca9JCoK00Xo7AGs2El@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Simon Peter Gatrall <sg1q+@andrew.cmu.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) Subject: Re: Ilana's progress report In-Reply-To: <1990Apr12.230603.26874@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <6948@ncar.ucar.edu> <12581207337009@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <6961@ncar.ucar.edu>, <1990Apr12.230603.26874@Neon.Stanford.EDU> I would generally agree with your views on the "increasingly litigious society," and I generally agree with your views on helmets and the UCSF as a whole. Now I have a question. I had an accident recently. I was riding down a hill in broad daylight, in plain view and a pick-up truck pulled out from a sidestreet directly in front of me. I sustained a contusion to my right leg (contact with fender) and bruised ribs (contact with hood and asphalt). There was absolutely no reason for this guy not to see me. I was going the speed limit and wearing a helmet (thankfully). I do not believe that this person should be strung up, but I have no qualms against his insurance company paying me as much as I can settle for. More than likely this will be limited to a few thousand. In a similar situation, would you just collect for damages or would you also go for "pain and suffering?" -Simon Gatrall sg1q+@andrew.cmu.edu

PDheader:1990-04-13 00:41:00-07:00 767ea26e4072e6de70c1cdea877aaf15 ∂13-Apr-90 0041 LES re: Ilana's progress report To: sg1q+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU [In reply to message sent Fri, 13 Apr 90 00:21:08 -0400.]

Because of the way our legal system works, it is often necessary to collect for "pain and suffering" just to break even when you sue because your lawyer must be paid out of the proceeds. Aside from that, I would want to collect some for pain and suffering if I actually experienced substantial pain and suffering, as you apparently did. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-04-13 14:10:00-07:00 13d413801e7fbd204917cc57cdf32558 ∂13-Apr-90 1410 cdp!pyramid!ctnews!unix386!bhilden@labrea.stanford.edu Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 90 14:10:06 PDT Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA00694; Fri, 13 Apr 90 14:13:44 -0700 Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 13 Apr 90 12:17:35 PST Received: by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.61/OSx5.0-890710) id AA03401; Fri, 13 Apr 90 12:15:56 -0700 Received: by ctnews.Convergent.COM (5.51/smail2.5/6-9-88) id AA17774; Fri, 13 Apr 90 19:02:47 GMT Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 19:02:47 GMT From: unix386!bhilden@labrea.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9004131902.AA17774@ctnews.Convergent.COM> Apparently-To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU

>From unix386!bhilden Fri Apr 13 19:02:44 1990 To: ctnews!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!les Subject: Re: Ilana's progress report In-reply-to: your article <1990Apr12.230603.26874@Neon.Stanford.EDU> News-Path: ctnews!pyramid!voder!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!neon!Gang-of-Four!les Correct as usual. I had a pothole in Boulder destroy my old PX-10 (I stayed up !!!!), the crux of any case I had against the city was to prove negligence(like they knew, but did not do anything about it!). Bruce

PDheader:1990-04-13 22:03:00-07:00 4aff92785d2dfee9d6840b51ec0b5c5d ∂13-Apr-90 2203 LES re: Ilana's progress report To: unix386!bhilden@CTNEWS.CONVERGENT.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 13 Apr 90 19:02:47 GMT.]

I was once strongly tempted to go after the city of Ventura when one of their street gratings ate my front wheel during a ride down the coast to San Diego. Fortunately a fellow in the gas station right next to this menace offered me his car to get to the bike shop about a mile away. When I brought the bike in, the manager asked "California Street grating?" I nodded. "That thing brings us a lot of business," he said. They were kind enough to drop their other work and build me a new wheel in 3 hours, so I got to L.A. by nightfall. I was out only $50 and a few hours time and didn't relish the idea of pressing a claim that far away, so I let it go. I was happy to see that the grating had been fixed by the time of my next trip one year later. -Les

PDheader:1990-04-16 11:46:00-07:00 aafa8be303d63706fcf7d6bb513c31fb ∂16-Apr-90 1146 sumax!ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu Re: Lawsuits Received: from rutgers.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 90 11:46:39 PDT Received: from uw-beaver.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.3/3.05) with UUCP id AB22936; Mon, 16 Apr 90 12:28:16 EDT Received: by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.61/7.0) id AA25107; Mon, 16 Apr 90 08:29:04 -0700 Received: by sumax.UUCP (smail2.5) id AA19079; Mon, 16 Apr 90 08:21:40 pdt Received: by ole.UUCP (5.51/4.7) id AA28066; Mon, 16 Apr 90 07:47:03 PST Message-Id: <9004161547.AA28066@ole.UUCP> To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Lawsuits Newsgroups: rec.bicycles References: <6948@ncar.ucar.edu> <12581207337009@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <6961@ncar.ucar.edu> <1990Apr12.230603.26874@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 07:46:54 PST From: Gary W. Powell <sumax!ole!powell@beaver.cs.washington.edu>

Hi Les, I am sorry you feel that way about sueing people but I am forced to sue you for infinging on my freedom to read only what I approve of. The pain in my side from laughing at your posting won't go away and has rendered me unable to complete this program which I am sure would be worth at least a gazillion dollars. Therfore you will be hearing from my lawyer. --- _Q _Q _Q _Q _Q_Q _Q _Q _Q /_\) /_\) /_\) /_\)/_/\\) /_\) /_\) Gary Powell /_\) _O|/O_O|/O__O|/O___O|/O_OO|/O__O|/O__O|/O__________________________________O|/O_ uunet!uw-beaver!sumax!ole!powell Seattle Silicon Corp. (206) 828-4422

PDheader:1990-04-17 06:43:00-07:00 ae3f789a6b549b5f9727994979cfcb88 ∂17-Apr-90 0643 berkcan@sparky.crd.ge.com Bicycle Child Seats Received: from crdgw1.ge.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Apr 90 06:43:19 PDT Received: by crdgw1.ge.com (5.57/Ultrix-3.0 1.67) id AA26657; Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:42:53 EDT Received: from mephistopheles.crd.Ge.Com by sparky.crd.Ge.Com (4.0/SMI-4.0/GE-CRD @(#)sun4.ease 1.13 4/13/89) id AA20204; Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:44:21 EDT Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:44:21 EDT From: berkcan@sparky.crd.ge.com (Ertugrul Berkcan) Message-Id: <9004171344.AA20204@sparky.crd.Ge.Com> Received: by mephistopheles.crd.Ge.Com (4.1/SMI-4.0/GE-CRD @(#)sun4.ease 1.13 4/13/89) id AA04026; Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:44:24 EDT To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Bicycle Child Seats

Les, Sometime back, you had posted the copy of an AP(?) article pertaining to the danger of child seats and some related studies. I am very interested in this issue and trying to convince the local bicycle safety coalition of the danger of these seats and the relatively increased safety of bike trailers. I would thus appreciate it if you could send me that article (in case you still have it around). Any pointers as to how I can get hold of the studies would also be very benefitial. Thanks a lot for your time, Ertugrul Berkcan berkcan@crd.ge.com berkcan@mephistopheles.crd.ge.com

PDheader:1990-04-18 12:17:00-07:00 7bcefda75a17fd361541c0dd9ed316ed ∂18-Apr-90 1217 jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Development coach Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Apr 90 12:17:32 PDT Received: from hplms1.hpl.hp.com by hplms2.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (15.11.1.3/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA29086; Wed, 18 Apr 90 12:18:23 pdt Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Wed, 18 Apr 90 11:17:57 pst Date: 18 Apr 90 11:29 -0800 Subject: Development coach Message-Id: <32074111.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 18 Apr 90 11:06:30-PST (Wed)

I just read a self indictment by Roger Marquis in "Velo News" in which he explains how in his usual manner pressed sponsors with "proof by assertion" arguments that were not in his authority to make. How much more irritation do we need from him? I am not even interested in the merits of electrolytes but I don't think the federation needs any extra friction from Roger. As he says, "there are few serious (read: competitive) cyclists writing to the net." as he spreads his compliments generously. By the way, do you officiate these days, and if so, will you be there for the Mt. Hamilton race? jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com

PDheader:1990-04-18 16:32:00-07:00 df2e8b9326b951922e7c645593727fbb ∂18-Apr-90 1632 LES re: Development coach To: jobst_brandt%40@HP1900.DESK.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 18 Apr 90 11:29 -0800.]

I haven't read the last 3 VeloNewses yet but can certainly agree that Roger is a walking encyclopedia of misinformation. I have been trying to ignore him but may be overcome by rightiousness again at any time. Yes, I'm officiating these days but I don't think I'm slated to do Mt. Hamilton this year -- when is it? I plan to do the Collegiate National Championships, which Stanford is hosting this year, and they plan to run the road events over Mt. Hamilton on May 19. -Les

PDheader:1990-04-19 08:11:00-07:00 b39a51775da9aaf54560f7013957e5c5 ∂19-Apr-90 0811 jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Mt. Hamilton Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 90 08:11:04 PDT Received: from hplms1.hpl.hp.com by hplms2.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (15.11.1.3/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA04297; Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:11:58 pdt Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Thu, 19 Apr 90 07:11:32 pst Date: 19 Apr 90 07:59 -0800 Subject: Mt. Hamilton Message-Id: <32094080.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 19 Apr 90 7:10:48-PST (Thu)

I think you ought to read the letters section of the latest VN. This is a classic Rogerism in which he indicts himself. Glad to hear about the collegiate race on the mountain. Where do you start and finish. The SJBC event is on the 26-27-28 May with the road race on Sunday 27 starting at the school where they did last year and finishing at Wente Bros. on Tesla Rd. jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com

PDheader:1990-04-20 13:19:00-07:00 9878d598dfe373dace33bef082bc629d ∂20-Apr-90 1319 LES re: Mt. Hamilton To: jobst_brandt%40@HP1900.DESK.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 19 Apr 90 07:59 -0800.]

OK, I read Roger's letter, which was just as bad as you asserted, then called Colorado Springs to suggest that something be done about it. I request that you keep this confidential, but it appears that the short-lived affiliation between Roger and the USCF Coaching Office will be terminated shortly. On the Collegiate road race, the current plan is to run the men over the top and into the valley, then do a 180 turn and race back to near the top of the mountain. The women will start on the backside and race up the mountain. I had forgotten that Mt. Hamilton was to be a part of the San Jose series again this year. I was slated to run it again but decided to talk John Tarbert into taking it because at that time I will be in my final sprint for political office -- I'm running for city council in Los Altos Hills. -Les

PDheader:1990-04-20 15:15:00-07:00 6e65804db724aa2419e8d14416806290 ∂20-Apr-90 1515 jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Mt. Hamilton etc. Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Apr 90 15:15:50 PDT Received: from hplms1.hpl.hp.com by hplms2.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (15.11.1.3/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA13559; Fri, 20 Apr 90 15:16:38 pdt Received: by hplms1.HPL.HP.COM; Fri, 20 Apr 90 14:16:15 pst Date: 20 Apr 90 14:46 -0800 Subject: Mt. Hamilton etc. Message-Id: <32136659.1099836.243.4@HP1900UX.HPDESK> X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 X-Hpdesk-System: 259 To: les@sail.stanford.edu From: jobst_brandt%40@hp1900.desk.hp.com Received: from ux@hp1900 by hplabs; 20 Apr 90 14:12:58-PST (Fri)

Thanks for the info. I would probably not send confidential information on e-mail but I appreciate the news (which will remain that way). But do you need the abuse that comes with the job on the LAH council. I think the flatlanders all watch these things with a feeling of safe distance. It seems to me that the town has a peculiar mix of "new money" that overwhelms even a Solomonic leader. Not knowing what the true battles are about it all looks so petty from Palo Alto or even from Los Altos. I guess the redundancy of the name suggests something about the town of Los Altos Hills, sort of like Piedmont Hills. On the other hand, I am sure that Roger's testimony (in print) can be used against him if not some of the jive he sends to the usenet. Just his insulting postings could disqualify him as mentor of young cycling athletes. jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com

PDheader:1990-04-20 17:49:00-07:00 966b6363634a12508fdbf3040c732cf2 ∂20-Apr-90 1749 LES LAH politics To: jobst_brandt%40@HP1900.DESK.HP.COM [In reply to message sent 20 Apr 90 14:46 -0800.]

I agree that it is somewhat foolish of me to run, but we have a serious problem -- a mayor who is a petty crook and always votes pro-developer. This is not surprising in view of the fact that she was elected primarily with funds from one developer who is trying to do a big project in LAH. There is also an old fellow on the council who always follows her tail. If just one more more pro-developer candidate is elected they will have a majority and the Hills will become much more urban in short order. There are five candidates running now for two slots and two of them have heavy financial support from the same developer. Thus if either of the latter is elected we lose. I seem to be a sucker for this kind of situation -- as you may recall, I got into cycling politics long ago as a result of misconduct by USCF officers, primarily Mike Walden. The situation started with Marc Brandt's altercation with Jim Grill and boiled over when they suspended Chris Springer for a year, based on third-hand hearsay evidence that turned out to be false. This new political arena will provide an educational experience if nothing else. -Les

PDheader:1990-04-24 10:36:00-07:00 393ac53a4f11faa8baefcfc6e108c918 ∂24-Apr-90 1036 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Politics and Poker Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Apr 90 10:36:10 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA03226; Tue, 24 Apr 90 12:37:03 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 12:37:15 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 24 Apr 90 12:37:15 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Politics and Poker Message-Id: <Q6349CF4@odin>

After not too much soul searching, I decided NOT to be a candidate for the USCF BOD this year. Maybe next year, but I still am very comfortable being an "ambassador" as opposed to a director. No spy reports of interest have reached me, however. I would believe it if someone said that there really isn't too much going on. Of course I would also believe if someone said it was even worse! Phil Say hi to Joan, BTW.

PDheader:1990-04-24 15:22:00-07:00 26e5e3e3bc542409b57c91f0644f33b9 ∂24-Apr-90 1522 LES re: Politics and Poker To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 24 Apr 90 12:37:15 CDT.]

> After not too much soul searching, I decided NOT to be a candidate > for the USCF BOD this year. Boo! Hiss! It is getting to be very lonely on the Board. Today's mail finally brought a response to my inquiry to Jerry regarding payments to Directors. He had earlier tried to side-step it by sending me a note saying that he had to get approval from Richard and Beth before releasing the information. I called him up and pointed out that inasmuch as I am a Director, I have a legal right to see all the financial records of the Federation and that he, as chief financial officer, had damn well better not atempt to obstruct my inquiries. I told him to talk to Bart Enoch if he didn't understand. This apparently worked. The report has some irrelevant listings but it also shows that Mike Fraysse received a total of $1257 in 1989 for managing at the Tour de Trump and the Junior Worlds in Moscow. It also shows that Beth Estes received $500 in both 1988 and 1989 for teaching "UCI Commissaire Clinics." There is no mention of payments to Bob Beal, who was paid according to one spy report. I believe that the payments to both Mike and Beth were improper and should be refunded. Of course, there were no "UCI Commissaire Clinics" -- those were USCF officials clinics. In any case, those payments were contrary to Bylaw F, Section 1. I trust that you did not apporove the payment in 1988. Right? RIGHT?? Speaking of that Bylaw, I note with curiousity that the last sentence was dropped between the 1988 and 1989 editions of the Rule Book, though I recall no amendment. The missing sentence said "District representatives are considered to hold paid positions; race officials are not." I plan to review the amendments that year to see of that was an approved change or another editorial blunder. Locally, I am about to go on the attack in my campaign for City Council. I plan to expose the fact that my principal opponent operates under the control of a developer who is planning a major subdivision in town. Joan thinks that I am a bit bloodthirsty. I figure that since they are outspending me by a factor of ten that I'd better kick ass. Cheers, Les

PDheader:1990-04-27 01:37:00-07:00 ba9721dcc1b24f845f1cc390cad46436 ∂27-Apr-90 0137 LES re: Politics and Poker To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU I just noticed an error in my last message to you: the $500 payments to

Beth were in 1989 and 1990 instead of a year earlier. I remain curious about whether you might have approved her 1989 payment for teaching the official's seminar or whether she did the draw herself.

PDheader:1990-04-27 08:18:00-07:00 ca5a1c85b53624c58d940f8de9dd5b5b ∂27-Apr-90 0818 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: re: Politics and Poker Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 90 08:18:37 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA20744; Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:19:31 CDT Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:19:43 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:19:43 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: re: Politics and Poker Message-Id: <Q638712C@odin> In-Reply-To: <vOQKy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

Oh, yes, I guess that since I set up the program (or the TC did) that I approved it. I think it was under the notion that the instructors weren't TC members and so it was OK (having forgotten about that by-laws prohibition). I don't really remember signing off the final payments, but then having set up the program, that would only have been icing on the cake.

PDheader:1990-05-01 08:08:00-07:00 0c34d0ddf6f80c232d721f5a718549c9 ∂01-May-90 0808 cathyf@brazos.rice.edu Re: 1,216 miles in a day Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 May 90 08:08:17 PDT Received: from brazos.rice.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA01277; Tue, 1 May 90 08:09:12 -0700 Received: by brazos.rice.edu (AA28888); Tue, 1 May 90 10:09:05 CDT Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:09:05 CDT From: Catherine A. Foulston <cathyf@brazos.rice.edu> Message-Id: <9005011509.AA28888@brazos.rice.edu> To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu Subject: Re: 1,216 miles in a day Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1990Apr30.235733.26584@Neon.Stanford.EDU> References: <32316285.0.0.0@HP1900UX.HPDESK> <4578@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Cc:

I remember your posting as saying 'dreck' and the followup saying 'derck.' Cathy -- Cathy Foulston =|=|= cathyf@rice.edu =|=|= cathyf@ricevm1 (bitnet) Rice University, Network and Systems Support

PDheader:1990-05-02 11:14:00-07:00 42f329783c10eae07f0501ac9df96cdf ∂02-May-90 1114 LES Where is Spike Bike now that we need him? To: rec-bicycles@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU

[From Associated Press] SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A gunman ambushed and killed a bicycle rider, seriously injured a driver and wounded two police officers before he was shot in a sidewalk gunbattle outside a crowded shopping mall, police said. Paul Bellazain was wounded in the thigh Tuesday during a shootout with officers near the Westlake Mall in Daly City, just south of San Francisco, said Daly City police Detective Jim McHenry. One of the officers tackled Bellazain, who carried a pistol, as he tried to flee, ending a 45-minute rampage in which a gunman in a brown Cadillac cruised a freeway and side streets in San Francisco, fatally shooting the bicyclist and firing at cars. Daly City police said Bellazain would be booked for investigation of two counts of attempted murder. San Francisco police said Bellazain was under investigation in connection with the shootings here. Bellazain, 46, was in fair condition Tuesday night at Kaiser Hospital. Bellazain, a veteran San Francisco transit driver, has been off work the past five months, receiving workers' compensation because of a hand injury. The shooting spree apparently began in San Francisco shortly before 9 a.m., when officers received reports of shots fired on Alemany Boulevard, said police spokesman Dave Ambrose. A short time later, James Newman was struck by a bullet that entered his arm and lodged in his chest as he was driving on I-280 in San Francisco. Newman, 41, was in serious condition Tuesday night at San Francisco General Hospital. At 9:10 a.m., police received a call that a bike rider was shot to death at McLaren Park near the Daly City border. His identity was not immediately released. The gunman apparently continued south into Daly City, where between 9:10 a.m. and 9:35 a.m., chiropractor Gene Martin and his receptionist, Stephanie Ryan, were taken hostage in their office. ''(He) said 'Get over there, doc,' and then he started to rant and rave how the system was messing him up,'' a shaken Martin said. ''He had three guns when he came in and he said he was sorry he didn't have an Uzi,'' Martin said. ''I thought I was going to die, but he was really after the cops.'' Bellazain gave Martin tapes containing what he said were messages to his children proclaiming his love for them. He told the hostages he wanted to get back at police because they were reportedly investigating him for alleged child abuse. San Francisco and Daly City police said they knew of no such investigation, but Bellazain had been under a restraining order sought by his ex-wife, Shirley Ann Bellazain, who said he abused her and their children during their 17-year marriage. The gunman let the receptionist go after she lied, saying she was pregnant, according to Martin. He said Bellazain told him to call police before storming out of the office to confront officers with a volley of shots. ''It seemed like the shooting went on forever,'' said Alfredo Aguirre, manager of the San Mateo County Mental Health Clinic near the shopping center, where horrified shoppers witnessed the gunbattle. Two officers, Sgt. Ralph Warren and Gary Smith, were each shot in the arm during the gunbattle. Police said it was not clear who shot Bellazain. AP-NY-05-02-90 1052EDT **********

PDheader:1990-05-03 08:09:00-07:00 602e4f5543ebaf4d446fbc084b1a0c15 ∂03-May-90 0809 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Bogus amateurs and the revolving door policy Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 90 08:09:42 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA16732; Thu, 3 May 90 10:10:38 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 10:10:52 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 3 May 90 10:10:52 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: Les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Bogus amateurs and the revolving door policy Message-Id: <Q6404A03@odin>

I have a spy report (don't even think of asking from where) that in order to meet the international stipulation that in an amateur open race only one third of the field may be professionals, the feds are issuing amateur licenses to riders who are otherwise professionals. Al McDonald is apparently the chief comissaire (I don't remember how he was appointed?). I imagine that the riders in question will revert to being pros after the race finishes. Stinky. Now I am remembering why I didn't want to be on the exec. committee anymore. Expediency (read $$$) is the operative value and I didn't have the fire to raise moral or legal issues. The European crowd is concerned about the composition of the field, I had a call from Carla Giuliani about this issue. That's all for now

PDheader:1990-05-03 10:00:00-07:00 8059d3f077690a3aad1b6eb34a775dc0 ∂03-May-90 1000 fineman@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov Re: Collegiate national championships Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 90 10:00:13 PDT Received: from ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA11706; Thu, 3 May 90 10:01:04 -0700 Received: from bayes.arc.nasa.gov by ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/) id <AA06293>; Thu, 3 May 90 09:59:46 PDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 09:59:46 PDT From: Charles Fineman <fineman@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Message-Id: <9005031659.AA06293@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Received: by bayes.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/) id <AA00317>; Thu, 3 May 90 09:59:43 PDT To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Collegiate national championships Newsgroups: rec.bicycles In-Reply-To: <1990May3.010719.12887@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Cc:

Hi. I was wondering if you could post a schedule of the events once it becomes more-or-less finalized. Thanks, Chuck Fineman

PDheader:1990-05-03 12:24:00-07:00 15736b7200806cfb3c88fb0ecd933aaa ∂03-May-90 1224 LES re: Bogus amateurs and the revolving door policy To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 3 May 90 10:10:52 CDT.]

Interesting. Do you know if they required these riders to resign their pro licenses or just issued the USCF in adddition? Meanwhile, the USCF office recently refused to issue an amateur license to Bob Pfarr, who has never won anything close to $2,500 per day but who foolishly enclosed a note with his license application mentioning that he holds a pro license. As I subsequently pointed out to Jerry during a rather strained telephone conversation, buying a fishing license doesn't make you a fisherman, so why should buying a pro racing license make you a pro? This whole situation is getting me very pissed off.

PDheader:1990-05-03 12:27:00-07:00 f7bec59d28531576b1f7574762e197d4 ∂03-May-90 1227 LES re: Collegiate national championships To: fineman@PTOLEMY.ARC.NASA.GOV [In reply to message sent Thu, 3 May 90 09:59:46 PDT.]

> Hi. I was wondering if you could post a schedule of the events once it > becomes more-or-less finalized. Sure. It was still flexing when I talked with the organizers on Tuesday. -Les

PDheader:1990-05-03 16:20:00-07:00 05a5ffd90a2a5731b1e416b51d1770ec ∂03-May-90 1620 JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU re: Bikes and Bikes Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 90 16:20:23 PDT Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA13488; Thu, 3 May 90 16:21:16 -0700 Message-Id: <1TStFi@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: 03 May 90 1620 PDT From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: re: Bikes and Bikes To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SHELBY.STANFORD.EDU

[In reply to message from les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU sent 3 May 90 21:49:51 GMT.] There's a discrepancy here. If there are 78.1 million bicyclists and 2.3 million bicycles are sold per year, this suggests that the average bicycle is 34 years old, which seems to me extremely doubtful. Maybe the 2.3 million refers to American manufactured bicycles.

PDheader:1990-05-03 17:32:00-07:00 da6ab519f9951c9a9b3f143732c89abb ∂03-May-90 1732 Mailer re: Bikes and Bikes To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

[In reply to message from LES rcvd 03-May-90 17:22-PT.] The 2.3 million was my mistake in reading the Statistical Abstracts. I took a table giving the dollar value of bicycles as giving the number of bicycles. Fortunately, the average bicycle still doesn't cost $1,000. The Statistical Abstract agrees with Les about 1985 exactly, and gives 5.2 million domestic and 7.4 million imports for 1987.

PDheader:1990-05-04 14:01:00-07:00 b020bce7d5d2a1b6bb1f955a809d8f70 ∂04-May-90 1401 servio!SLC.COM!marcs@uunet.UU.NET Re: USCF: Demons from hell? Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 May 90 14:00:56 PDT Received: from uunet.UU.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA17872; Fri, 4 May 90 14:01:44 -0700 Received: from servio.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA16116; Fri, 4 May 90 16:59:26 -0400 Received: by servio.SLC.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA06822; Fri, 4 May 90 13:59:41 PDT Date: Fri, 4 May 90 13:59:41 PDT From: marcs@SLC.COM (Marc San Soucie) Message-Id: <9005042059.AA06822@servio.SLC.COM> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: USCF: Demons from hell? Newsgroups: rec.bicycles Organization: Servio Logic Development Corp.; Beaverton, OR

Les: I wonder if you might help me out with something. I'm new in my area here, and haven't yet had the opportunity to get associated with any of the local cycling clubs. In fact, I'm not yet sure whether I want to get associated with any of them, because I don't know any of the members, any club policies, or club reputations. Is it possible to sign on as a new Cat IV racer without being affiliated with a club? Are there disadvantages to riding unattached? Who should I contact here if I decide I want to sign up? Thanks for any help you can provide. Marc San Soucie Portland, Oregon marcs@servio.slc.com

PDheader:1990-05-04 16:04:00-07:00 4873a85a11e4a708f21bacc1a1d088d7 ∂04-May-90 1604 LES re: USCF: Demons from hell? To: marcs@SLC.COM [In reply to message sent Fri, 4 May 90 13:59:41 PDT.]

Marc: You say: > Is it possible to sign on as a new Cat IV racer without being affiliated with > a club? Are there disadvantages to riding unattached? Yes, you can race "unattached," as I have always done, but promoting clubs are permitted to charge unattached riders up to $5 extra per race, so it will be financially advantageous to join a club if you race very much. > Who should I contact here if I decide I want to sign up? Your USCF District Representative is Steve Scarich, whose address and phone are: 2487 Nixon St. Eugene, OR 97403 (503) 343- 7995 He should be able to tell you about clubs in your area. Good luck and have fun! -Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-05-21 15:53:00-07:00 93f142772cd1169fb04687cbe646dbf1 ∂21-May-90 1553 polly@dtc.hp.com Question about Collegiate Nationals Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 May 90 15:53:36 PDT Received: from dtc.dtc.hp.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA09299; Mon, 21 May 90 15:54:04 -0700 Received: from corona.dtc.hp.com by dtc.hp.com; Mon, 21 May 90 15:54:23 pdt Received: from cutterjohn.dtc.hp.com by hpcilna; Mon, 21 May 90 15:54:19 pdt To: les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) Subject: Question about Collegiate Nationals Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company Entity: Design Technology Center, Santa Clara, CA Phone: (408) 553-2960 Date: Mon, 21 May 90 15:54:17 PDT Message-Id: <13881.643330457@cutterjohn.dtc.hp.com> From: polly@dtc.hp.com

I thought I'd ask you this question rather than posting it to the net, since I don't think too many other people will care. (Maybe you covered it later, but I'm not yet caught up on notes.) I understood from some of my friends that Berkeley only had three women riding in the team time trial, and as a result the second person (4th wheel) across the line counted for the TTT result. As a result of that, Berkeley scored ahead of Stanford. If the third person (6th wheel) was the determining factor, then Stanford's time would have beaten Berkeley. Is this correct? If so, why? It seems to me that in TTT's in the past, if it was a 4 man and you only had 3 people, then it was still the 3rd person that counted. It seems like Berkeley's third person should have been the deciding factor, since they could have fielded a larger team. Any elucidation you can give is appreciated! Thanks! Polly Siegel Design Technology Center Hewlett-Packard (polly@dtc.hp.com)

PDheader:1990-05-21 16:00:00-07:00 6cb4686ba050b12c6a6f53e3df379d5a ∂21-May-90 1600 LES re: Question about Collegiate Nationals To: polly@DTC.HP.COM [In reply to message sent Mon, 21 May 90 15:54:17 PDT.]

Yes, it is true that they had a special rule for teams of 3 women (but not 3 men). In fact, I didn't notice that until just before the race and it caused some confusion among the officials. My opinion is that it is one of several silly rules that they made up for the collegiate races, but they have a right to do it as long as there is no flagrant conflict with other rules. -Les

PDheader:1990-05-23 23:32:00-07:00 81fddf1ce792aa1b2d868de22c0f8212 ∂23-May-90 2332 tran@portia.stanford.edu Saturday's TTT Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 May 90 23:31:56 PDT Received: from Portia.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA21659; Wed, 23 May 90 23:32:16 -0700 Received: by portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA05409; Wed, 23 May 90 23:32:45 PDT Date: Wed, 23 May 90 23:32:45 PDT From: Hy Tran <tran@portia.stanford.edu> Message-Id: <9005240632.AA05409@portia.stanford.edu> To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Subject: Saturday's TTT

Les, On the Women's TTT, we saw what looked like a team of two, with one woman pushing the other up and down the course. We had a debate as to the legality of that (comments like "anything you can do with five people is legal." "Gee, sounds like it could be fun.") Anyway, someone who'd read the rules said that it was illegal to push. So, the question is (aside from "why'd she push her teammate"), outside a Madison, is it ever legal to push or pull a teammate? Or an opponent? Hy tran@joshua.stanford.edu

PDheader:1990-05-24 12:18:00-07:00 7b1fdbd023ae4bfa20acf1d0445f9ce5 ∂24-May-90 1218 LES re: Saturday's TTT To: tran@PORTIA.Stanford.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 23 May 90 23:32:45 PDT.]

Yes, pushing is forbidden and I disqualified that team. Unfortunately, that decision produced a tantrum from the organizer (Wit Henisz), two USCF Directors (Cathy Volsky & Susan Bookspan) and a coach, all of whom are clearly ignorant of the rules. As usual, I endeared myself by telling them to fuck off. -Les

PDheader:1990-05-24 13:59:00-07:00 43fbdab845e099df414c2e6fc4aebc48 ∂24-May-90 1359 tran@joshua Re: Saturday's TTT Received: from joshua (Joshua.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 90 13:59:14 PDT Received: by joshua (4.0/inc-1.0) id AA02677; Thu, 24 May 90 13:54:17 PDT From: tran@joshua.stanford.edu (Hy Tran) Message-Id: <9005242054.AA02677@joshua> To: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Saturday's TTT In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 May 90 12:18:00 -0700.

<hyZd0@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Date: Thu, 24 May 90 13:54:15 PDT Since it wasn't a Stanford team, I'm rather surprised that Wit was exercised (unless he'd told that team that they *could* push). Are there any cases (outside of a velodrome) where you can push? What's the equivalent of the "free lap" for a road race? Can you hitch back to the pack, or are you stuck? Hy

PDheader:1990-05-24 15:03:00-07:00 5c7ef0a3f88f776d5d0ecc19030770b3 ∂24-May-90 1503 LES re: Saturday's TTT To: tran@JOSHUA.STANFORD.EDU [In reply to message sent Thu, 24 May 90 13:54:15 PDT.]

> Since it wasn't a Stanford team, I'm rather surprised that Wit was > exercised (unless he'd told that team that they *could* push). I discovered that Wit's ignorance of racing rules is exceeded only by his self-rightious arrogance. > Are there any cases (outside of a velodrome) where you can push? No. > What's the equivalent of the "free lap" for a road race? Can you hitch back > to the pack, or are you stuck? Beginning this year in Category A races (big $$$), riders who suffer a mishap may be motorpaced back to their original position, but otherwise there is no equivalent. -Les

PDheader:1990-06-05 08:14:00-07:00 556fcbef2c95fdd55a5ed6dd143897c3 ∂05-Jun-90 0814 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Gorbaphilia Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jun 90 08:13:55 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA28309; Tue, 5 Jun 90 10:14:56 CDT Date: Tue, 5 Jun 90 10:15:18 CDT From: "Phil Voxland" <voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Message-Id: <9006051515.AA21410@atlas.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Tue, 5 Jun 90 10:15:18 CDT To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: Gorbaphilia

So I ran out of my front door, hopped on my bicycle and hurried to the nearby freeway fences to take a picture of what was almost certainly the wrong car in Gorbachev's motorcade. Otherwise I spend Sunday watching the non-stop coverage of G & R's visit to Minnesota. How did you fare with the same phenom? The track construction is virtually complete here now, though the infield will need sodding and other grounds prepartion for the sport festival. I guess Al McDonald will be coming through on the 24th in conjunction with some Subaru(?) race and he will perform the rites of signature for the UCI homologation of the track. Not too long ago I was in PA for the FIAC site inspection of the proposed Jr. World Championships. My main thought is that the road and tt courses will require a stupendous number of marshalls and that worries me. Last week I went to the Dentist and had a filling replaced, NOW I have a toothache and will report back for further mods. Don't tell me that your PDP-10 is still running. PHIL

PDheader:1990-06-06 17:49:00-07:00 1e866008f2438be5efc3472235712e76 ∂06-Jun-90 1749 LES re: Gorbaphilia To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Tue, 5 Jun 90 10:15:18 CDT.]

> . . . Otherwise I spend Sunday watching the non-stop coverage of G & R's > visit to Minnesota. How did you fare with the same phenom? Instead of going to watch, I lurked at the local Safeway supermarket where I cornered voters and told them to vote for me or else . . . It almost worked, but in the election yesterday I lost by 61 votes out of 5,615. Not bad, considering that I was outspent by a factor of 5 by two of the candidates and was not endorsed by either of the local papers. I was most pleased by the fact that the two developer-sponsored candidates lost big-time -- the total of their two votes was supstantially less than mine. > Don't tell me that your PDP-10 is still running. Actually, it was officially retired on June 1, though it (like me) is obviously still running. Its 24th birthday is today, but it will clearly not reach 25. -Les (who also can receive email at Les@Go4.Stanford.edu)

PDheader:1990-06-06 20:57:00-07:00 8d5d535b4faeac200722ae74b372079c ∂06-Jun-90 2057 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu re: Gorbaphilia Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 90 20:57:32 PDT Received: from nova.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA26074; Wed, 6 Jun 90 22:58:39 CDT Date: Wed, 6 Jun 90 22:58:37 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Message-Id: <9006070358.AA06297@nova.socsci.umn.edu> Received: by nova.socsci.umn.edu; Wed, 6 Jun 90 22:58:37 CDT To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: re: Gorbaphilia

I don't know whether to congratulate you or not on the election results. Judging by your campaign piece, it looks as though you won (on the issues of developers on the council) but lost the election. Oh, I'm kind of inclined to believe that you will have a happier hours and years by not being elected. Much happier, in fact.

PDheader:1990-06-08 11:20:00-07:00 750ec9090fb832ada4ac6b4f20a838e9 ∂08-Jun-90 1120 LES re: Gorbaphilia To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Wed, 6 Jun 90 22:58:37 CDT.]

Joan thinks that I won too, but I am less accepting -- I'm already planning my next campaign. Received: from hp-sde.sde.hp.com by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0) id AA18950; Wed, 20 Jun 90 08:40:55 -0700 Received: from hprnd.hp.com by hp-sde.sde.hp.com with SMTP (16.2A/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA23313; Wed, 20 Jun 90 08:40:51 -0700 Received: from hprmokg by hprnd.hp.com; Wed, 20 Jun 90 08:42:13 pdt Received: by hprmokg.rose.hp.com; Wed, 20 Jun 90 08:40:10 pdt From: Bruce Hendler <bruceh@hprmokg.hp.com> Message-Id: <9006201540.AA13262@hprmokg.rose.hp.com> Subject: Nevada City Classic To: les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 8:40:07 PDT Cc: bruceh@hprmokg.hp.com Mailer: Elm [revision: 64.3] June 6,1990 Mr. Earnest, Racing The Nevada City Classic for the forth consecutive year, I was particularly upset this year on how the referees handled the mens' race. 1. Allowing the men to wait for approximently 1/2 hour in between events while the women were interviewed. It was hot, the course was blocked off with photograghers and the Subura vehicle, thus preventing the men from doing any warm-up laps. The women could have been interviewed during or after the men's race. 2. Although I'm 100% in favor of introductions of the Montgomery/Suburu team riders because Suburu sponsered the event, I truly believe introducing thirteen of them plus Crest riders is ridiculous. Why should they get the front TWO rows on a course where starting position is so important. Maybe some type of numbering system for placement needs to be incorporated in this race with a limited number of introductions. 3. Starting almost dead last, I was working my way past numerous other riders every lap. At lap twelve, I was 20-30 seconds down on the main group and gaining 3-5 seconds a lap and 1:10 down on the break. Suburu riders not in the break had slowed the main field down. My group of seven was in no way of danger of being lapped, but we were pulled for no reason. I didn't understand it and still don't. Only 27 riders finished, most of the "big" names dropping out. I would ride until I fell over to finish this race. I paid my $40, I deserved to try to place in the top 25!! 4. Overall, to many riders were pulled. Spectators commented to me how boring the race was as compared to previous years. If you want forty finishers, leave 55-60 riders in after the cutoff. There is always attrition during the complete race. 5. I don't appreciate your comments at the beginning and end of the event. "...most of you will not finish..." and "Alot of these guys shouldn't even be here...". I work harder at my bike racing than you can imagine while working 40 hours a week also. I DO DESERVE TO BE IN THIS RACE!!! Regards, Bruce Hendler Team LeMond/Form-1

PDheader:1990-06-20 13:35:00-07:00 54b480fe85026bac9669ccf6472ab269 ∂20-Jun-90 1335 LES re: Nevada City Classic To: bruceh@HPRMOKG.HP.COM [In reply to message sent Wed, 20 Jun 90 8:40:07 PDT.]

Mr. Hendler, You say: > 1. Allowing the men to wait for approximently 1/2 hour in between events > while the women were interviewed. It was hot, the course was blocked > off with photograghers and the Subura vehicle, thus preventing the > men from doing any warm-up laps. The women could have been interviewed > during or after the men's race. The schedule was set by the race organizer and was about right -- it takes a little time between races for the officials to bring in their scoring reports and return to their posts around the course. Meanwhile, the riders are not obligated to warm up ON the course -- they can and should use nearby roads. > 2. Although I'm 100% in favor of introductions of the Montgomery/Suburu > team riders because Suburu sponsered the event, I truly believe > introducing thirteen of them plus Crest riders is ridiculous. Why > should they get the front TWO rows on a course where starting position > is so important. Maybe some type of numbering system for placement > needs to be incorporated in this race with a limited number of > introductions. Putting the Subaru/Montgomery team ahead of the rest was a gross impropriety and was contrary to the agreement I had with the organizer. Of course, once it was done it would have been messy to undo. Upon investigation, I learned that this nonsense was arranged with the announcer by a lady "shark" who works for Subaru who I have tangled with before. I am planning appropriate action. > 3. Starting almost dead last, I was working my way past numerous other > riders every lap. At lap twelve, I was 20-30 seconds down on the main > group and gaining 3-5 seconds a lap and 1:10 down on the break. Suburu > riders not in the break had slowed the main field down. My group of > seven was in no way of danger of being lapped, but we were pulled for > no reason. I didn't understand it and still don't. Only 27 riders > finished, most of the "big" names dropping out. I would ride until > I fell over to finish this race. I paid my $40, I deserved to try > to place in the top 25!! You are doubly misinformed. All riders, including you, were pulled when they were 2 minutes or more down from the leaders and this was done until we had about 50 riders left, as planned. Forty-some riders finished and we gave placings to 30 of them, as planned. Where do you collect these made-up "facts." > 4. Overall, to many riders were pulled. Spectators commented to me how > boring the race was as compared to previous years. If you want forty > finishers, leave 55-60 riders in after the cutoff. There is always > attrition during the complete race. Again, we pulled down to about 50 riders, as we have consistently done during the 15 years or so that I have been running this race. The race cannot be accurately scored with more riders than that. Your informants clearly do not know what they are talking about. > 5. I don't appreciate your comments at the beginning and end of the event. > "...most of you will not finish..." That statement was accurate and informative, given that we knew we would have to pull more than half the field. I have suggested that the organizer consider an invitational race next year with a smaller field size to reduce the number of non-competitive entries, though I am not sure that it would be approved by the Federation. > and "Alot of these guys shouldn't even be here...". I said nothing of the kind and do not appreciate your fabricating such a remark. > I DO DESERVE TO BE IN THIS RACE!!! Not last Sunday, I'm afraid. Maybe next year. -Les Earnest

PDheader:1990-06-25 14:28:00-07:00 e579b93e5929dee806ca0619cf2beed2 ∂25-Jun-90 1428 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu USCF Elections Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 90 14:28:35 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA20200; Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:29:46 CDT Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:29:51 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:29:51 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: les@sail.stanford.edu Subject: USCF Elections Message-Id: <Q6868228@odin>

Al McDonald was in town for the recent Subaru race (though he was here for Event Services doing television support stuff). Al mentioned some of the voting results, which I followed up on with a call to Dale this morning. I guess I feel some regret about Dale's loss; at least he was coming into his own as a person with an independent opinion on things. If I didn't mention before, I thought the candidates that were up in the Central section were a far shot stronger than in the west, and there certainly were more fighting for fewer positions. Too bad that's how it all worked out. (Recall that I voted against my own redistricting proposal [wink]). Well, so it goes now. Hmmm I wonder who will make a good Secretary for the BOD. Al also signed off on the UCI forms for certification of the distances of the track. I have ridden it a little, and get out of breath pretty quickly. I guess I better stick to the kilo -- at least it's over with soon! He will be back in a while, as Event Services has contracted for the installation of timing equipment for the track.

PDheader:1990-06-28 12:21:00-07:00 5b83610531a9df737f2bb5a61aafcfce ∂28-Jun-90 1221 LES re: USCF Elections To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU [In reply to message sent Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:29:51 CDT.]

I just got back from the so-called Legislation Committee meeting (a.k.a. the Executive Committee & one dissident) in Chicago, where we reviewed a draft agenda that I had assembled at the last moment. I'll send you a copy of its current state if you are interested. The Annual Meeting agenda this year will be extremely short -- just 8 items. I tried to get the committee to include the perennial proposal to elect directors by licensees but they balked this time. You may be amused to learn that DeGarmo requested (and the Committee approved) inclusion of what I call the Voxland Memorial Amendment: elimination of the 4 year limit on Presidential tenure. > Al McDonald was in town for the recent Subaru race . . . I did the Subaru race at Nevada City the week before and got diddled by the #$@!* Subaru lady sharks, who secretly told the announcer to call the Subaru-Montgomery team to the line ahead of everyone else, which is grossly unfair. I plan to get even, but will not tip my hand in advance. > Well, so it goes now. Hmmm I wonder who will make a good Secretary > for the BOD. Think no longer -- I'm going for it, but do not have high hopes. I am also proposing legislation that will assign the legislation chairman's job to the Secretary, which would give him something useful to do. Of course, the decision on that amendment will not happen until after the Secretary position is filled. I had dinner with Beth while waiting for our delayed flights home. She seems to think that USPCF (formerly PRO) is teetering on the brink of financial collapse now. She also says that that Jerry Lace has opposed the financial subsidy program from the beginning, but is being a "good soldier" and not making waves. You might be amused to learn that at the Costa Mesa Grand Prix two weekends ago, many prize winners received Chewable Power Tabs, a product made by the race sponsor that they "Recommend for athletic activity." The list of ingredients includes Ma Huang (a.k.a. herbal ephederine). -Les

PDheader:1990-06-28 12:36:00-07:00 645b2ad1748bf4ee21aff573cde460de ∂28-Jun-90 1236 voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu Re: re: USCF Elections Received: from uc.msc.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 90 12:35:58 PDT Received: from atlas.socsci.umn.edu by uc.msc.umn.edu (5.59/1.14) id AA23252; Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:37:12 CDT Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:37:18 CDT Received: from odin.socsci.umn.edu by atlas.socsci.umn.edu; Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:37:18 CDT From: voxland@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Philip M. Voxland) To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: re: USCF Elections Message-Id: <Q68A5C44@odin> In-Reply-To: <Lopfk@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

At 11:45 AM, Thursday June 28, 1990 Philip M. Voxland, former President of the United States Cycling Federation and long-time advocate of bicycles as transportation and recreation passed the Minnesota Drivers License road test. Cyclists who are riding or driving in the Minnesota area are advised to proceded with caution and respect.

PDheader:1990-06-28 12:44:00-07:00 1a8cfbaa6c5ea170f1147d0796846c22 ∂28-Jun-90 1244 LES Addendum To: voxland@ATLAS.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU

Congratulations on joining the community of polluters! Btw, on the way home from Chicago, I caught up on my stack of _Le Monde Cycliste_ and noticed a rather bad article on the USCF in issue 14. Among other things, it describes various kinds of bike racing in elementary terms. There was no author listed. Do you have any idea how that article got there? I found it extremely embarrassing. I also notice several references in meeting minutes to the "bicentennial of the invention of the bicycle." Having reviewed the history of this invention, I am quite sure that this is bullshit. I suspect that they are referring to a mythical invention, attributed to a M. de Sivrac of Paris, about which there are no contemprary accounts. In fact, this Sivrac character was invented about 50 years later by some Frenchmen so that they claim priority over von Draise, the actual inventor of the "draisienne." Don't let those Frogs get away with it.