None of that matters in regards to this thread. The vitriol exhibited here is bad. Very bad. Even for Slowtwitch. The anger people seem to feel the need to express on the pages really needs taming.

Looks like the person who disseminated an exaggerated version of the incident now turns out to have selfish and low motives.
The race director ousted himself as not knowing his own course and DQ-ing racers on hearsay.
The victim has been shown to have staggered oblivious and even reckless across the race course.

And the chivalrous Slowtwitchers instantly jumping to that poor woman's help and demanding blood... poor suckers.

But it sure was fun to follow.

There are 3 runners running to the left in the far lane. 2 are way down the path. Then there is one at the end. I suspect there were some course management issues.

The gentleman who was involved in the incident seems to be behaving like a motorist. He sees an obstacle in his lane and he tries to not leave the lane but still avoid the obstacle. This is often the cause of car passing close to bicyclists.

It seems like the gentleman had room to get by but the woman kept moving limiting his space - he was pinched between her and the yellow line. It appears that he had no ill intent.

Additionallly, this race director is clueless.

Goosedog wrote:

Can anyone get Dan to send out an email blast once this thing goes live? Thanks.

I might regret this but.....
[URL=http://tinypic.com/r/103zqsm/5]View My Video[/url]

Ummm....the debate IS over. The RD, the only guy whose opinion really matters, has settled it.

I'm stunned by the double standards that are clearly evident here. Reverse the roles for one moment. If he had totally ignored the other racers, backed into her, then almost backed into a second runner, then went on line and blasted her; we would be burning crosses in his yard. She caused the entire situation, not him.

Additionallly, this race director is clueless.

Sigh... Nobody owes anybody the damn video. If I were Dev, I'd never post it. There's simply no need to provide gratification; what purpose would it serve at this juncture? This is not a case to be decided in Trial By ST; the RD has made the decision, it's final, suck it up and move on. Unless you want to direct your own races and make those kinds of decisions, in which case you can demand all the video you want.

Quite frankly, I think we're very lucky in being afforded firsthand the opinion of the guy that did get to make the decision, and his reasoning behind the decision he made. That's a privilege, not a right, and to have the decision made by the official in charge questioned and challenged - and pretty aggressively, at that - by people on teh interwebz who don't have the benefit of all of the evidence (and quite rightly so) is extremely disrespectful in and of itself.

Did he do something wrong? Maybe.
Did she do something wrong? Maybe.
Did they both do something wrong? Maybe.

What I do know is that the race officials and the Race Director have responsibility to review any issues that come up, and to deal with them according to the rules. Sounds like they've done that.

Everything else deals with the court of public opinion, emphasis on opinion. So like when we rubberneck passing an auto accident, the phrase is "nothing to see here, keep moving." But boy is it fun to look. And this train wreck is right up there with Fin Man (although not as one-sided.) The trick will be to see who is willing to give the other person the last word, whether they agree or disagree.

I'm stunned by the double standards that are clearly evident here. Reverse the roles for one moment.

My mind is now officially blown...

I wasn't at the race and don't know anyone involved in the incident, but I would like to say 'thank you' to two people:

- the race director, who organized the race so that we have events to race. Without them, this sport wouldn't exist.

So UK2ME.

What purpose did the video serve? Well, it served to show what actually happened.

As for disrespecting the RD? Well, he deserves it now, doesn't he?

Don't just trust someone because they're in a position of "authority". Ask the questions.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yes, it did. Does it change the outcome? Nope. The RD's decision stands.

I don't think it casts any shame on the RD. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with his description of the event, but it's a short, quick video, and I didn't speak with anyone involved nor see the woman at the end so there is still an information asymmetry. The watchman does not need castigating for this decision, IMO.

Personally, I'd have DQ'd the guy too. Was she stupid? Yes. Absolutely. Self-absorbed and oblivious of the race around her. Was he an ignorant douche? Yes. I do believe that contact was unnecessary, unnecessarily harsh and that he could have avoided her. There are rules against malice, but not against being a ditz. Alas - I would love to be able to regulate stupid.

Yes, it did. Does it change the outcome? Nope. The RD's decision stands.

I don't think it casts any shame on the RD. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with his description of the event, but it's a short, quick video, and I didn't speak with anyone involved nor see the woman at the end so there is still an information asymmetry. The watchman does not need castigating for this decision, IMO.

Personally, I'd have DQ'd the guy too. Was she stupid? Yes. Absolutely. Self-absorbed and oblivious of the race around her. Was he an ignorant douche? Yes. I do believe that contact was unnecessary, unnecessarily harsh and that he could have avoided her. There are rules against malice, but not against being a ditz. Alas - I would love to be able to regulate stupid.

^^this

yes she was oblivious and in her own bubble
he had NO reason to knock into her none, zero. absolutely shows him to be a total d-bag

I just hope the guy behind her didn't want a finisher pic:

http://www.backprint.com/...mp;PWD=0&BIB=735

^^this

yes she was oblivious and in her own bubble
he had NO reason to knock into her none, zero. absolutely shows him to be a total d-bag

Remember that, if you ever have someone completely oblivious on the bike take you down.

While not as important as Slapgate, for me the burning question that remains is:

Was the hapless guy in the finishing chute:

a) clever enough to see his photos were a disaster if he didn't fall back for a clean background, or
b) actually overhauled by the ignorant diva and her flock because he went out too hard on the bike?




(scroll down past half way to see the earlier chute shots where he clearly had the lead)
(and either way, definitely a gentleman for not tripping any of the moppets as they went sailing past him)

she did not take him down he RAN INTO HER though he was running on the wrong side and had OODLES of room to avoid her.