[bdmc]

You are the clerk of course for a National Trial which is 2 laps of 25 sections. The method of marking is TSR22a. You have briefed all the observers and sent them on their way.

The trial finishes and the results cards added up. You notice that one rider (we will call him rider ‘B’) has missed a section. At least 97% of the entry cleaned the section and there were no failures. You enter 2 x 10 marks lost (Missing a section).

The final score shows rider A has dropped 28marks and rider ‘B’ has come 2nd with a loss of 47marks.

Rider ‘B; receives his results and puts in a protest. He pays his money. In his letter he clearly gives precise details of the section and who the observer was. He also claims that he cleaned it on both laps, but there were no witnesses.

You contact the observer who confirms that rider ‘B’ rode the section. The observer also stated that he did not mark him because he had fallen out with him at an earlier national. The observer would not tell you what his score was.

AS CoC what would you do to solve this situation.

[PERCE]

Tell the pair of them to grow up & settle their differences for starters, after all Trials is just supposed to be a bit of fun. Regardless though, if you find out the correct scores I doubt you can alter the result at this stage.
A brave C of C might scrub the section, amend the results & do a bit of naming & shaming.

This post has been edited by PERCE: 28 August 2008 - 04:42 PM

[lancsvet]

PERCE, on Aug 28 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

Tell the pair of them to grow up & settle their differences for starters, after all Trials is just supposed to be a bit of fun. Regardless though, if you find out the correct scores I doubt you can alter the result at this stage.
A brave C of C might scrub the section, amend the results & do a bit of naming & shaming.

As the observer has admitted that the rider did indeed ride the section my opinion is the section must be scrubbed from the results, what went on at a previous national is irrelivent to the results of this latest trial and petty arguments should not determine the scores of riders or the outcome of results.

[Dan Williams]

Yikes, they're both at fault. Rider B should have notified an official immediately after the first ride was not credited. A protest after the event where the observer admitted to a bias and modifying a score (no mark is modifying a score) then the observer's impartiality is impaired and the section MUST be thrown out and this must happen during the protest period. There is no way to correct for any other show of bias from that observer that may have occured during the event whether for or against another rider so the section is invalid. There is no other way to balance the situation for all riders.

[johnkennedy]

i agree, the rider should have told yourself, and i he couldnt find you tell someone who was taking in the cards.

that way you would know to tell the observer to get a grip. (that is not ment to sound biased but its true)

if the rider and the observers problem is irrelevant to trials , then they should not have carried it onto the trial.

and anyway even if you do take the give rider B the 37 points , it will not change his position so is there any real point in protesting

you have a toughy on your hands, perhaps you should give the rider his two cleans and refuse the observer to take part next time. (i konw we cant turn away observers, but is he a relyable and and fair one- it seems not)

[Outlaw Dave]

I would assume that the observing was done by clip board rather than by punch card? therefore rider B would not know his score until he got his results in the mail. - A very extreme and unhappy situation, but rider B should get the win after the section is scrubbed ( How many other riders did this "Observer" have a grudge against? - I would recommend he stays home next event)

[lancsvet]

johnkennedy, on Aug 28 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

i agree, the rider should have told yourself, and i he couldnt find you tell someone who was taking in the cards.

that way you would know to tell the observer to get a grip. (that is not ment to sound biased but its true)

if the rider and the observers problem is irrelevant to trials , then they should not have carried it onto the trial.

and anyway even if you do take the give rider B the 37 points , it will not change his position so is there any real point in protesting

you have a toughy on your hands, perhaps you should give the rider his two cleans and refuse the observer to take part next time. (i konw we cant turn away observers, but is he a relyable and and fair one- it seems not)

2 x 10 = 20 / 47 - 20 = 27 so rider B would win so it DOES make a difference !!

This post has been edited by lancsvet: 28 August 2008 - 06:31 PM

[AtomAnt]

The observer stated rider 'B' rode the section but would not give the result. Rider 'B' said he rode it and got clean both times.
I would give benefit of the doubt to rider 'B' and accept his statement and award points accordingly.

[scorpa3]

This is worse than the observer giving a rider the wrong score.

Scrub the section and let the observer know that you had no choice given the circumstances which meant he/she stood there all day for nothing.

You can't take the riders word for it, that's not fair on everyone else who was scored correctly on that section.

We can't afford to upset observers, but in my opinion (and only knowing the facts above) this is one case where the observer would be better staying at home.

[Dan Williams]

AtomAnt, on Aug 28 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

The observer stated rider 'B' rode the section but would not give the result. Rider 'B' said he rode it and got clean both times.
I would give benefit of the doubt to rider 'B' and accept his statement and award points accordingly.

Not fair to rider A, potentially not fair to C,D, E or F as there's no way to know if the observer liked them better so was lenient. Bad observer = bad section. Only way to be fair is to eliminate section. Kinda like OJ Simpson. As soon as the cop took the fifth (the right to not self incriminate) to the question of, "Did you tamper with evidence?" the only possible verdict was not guilty. Here you've got an observer admitting to tampering with scores. Therefore the whole section for the day has gotta go.

It hadn't occured to me that punch cards might not have been used. The rule here in New England is the rider is responsible for his card and it does lend immediate feedback if there is an issue.

This post has been edited by Dan Williams: 28 August 2008 - 08:19 PM

[The Addict]

Sounds like a good excuse for a right good boll0ck kicking contest to sort things out

[bikespace]

I've thought long and hard about it, and my decision would be based on these facts:

1. The observer has admitted that a mistake was made with the scores. Mistake may not seem the right wording, but the correct score was not marked, whatever the reason.
2. The rider has already stated that he had 2 cleans, which at this point is more accurate than what the observer originally reported.
3. If the section is scrubbed, the result at the top is the same as if rider B is given 2 cleans, so rider B is going to take the win either way.

Decision: Rider B score corrected to 2 cleans as observer has admitted wrong scoring.

I'd be happy to stand up to that decision, although I'm sure you could justify scrubbing the section if you wished. I see no reason to disrupt other riders scores though if there is no indication that theirs would be wrong.

[bikespace]

Dan Williams, on Aug 28 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Here you've got an observer admitting to tampering with scores. Therefore the whole section for the day has gotta go.

I wouldn't say he's tampering with scores, he's just refused to score a rider. If he'd given the rider two 5's (or any mark other than two 0's) then I agree with your decision.
The fact that scrubbing the section has the same effect on these two riders as altering rider B's score to the highly likely two 0's made me alter his marks rather than scrubbing the section.

With 97% of riders cleaning the section, and the observer admitting wrong scoring, and the top rider claiming two cleans, I'll go for "Beyond reasonable doubt" and change the score to two cleans.


Just to complicate things, we'll probably get to the point that we decide that the Clerk of Course can't alter the scores, he can only get the observer to alter the scores if a mistake was made.
I'm still going with the common sense approach, my assistant (the observer) has let me down. I'm correcting the scores and not looking too carefully at whether I'm really allowed to do it or not
However, I don't believe I've got an observer who dislikes me enough to put me in this awkward position. I would be pointing out what an awkward position it puts me in, and asking if he would possibly consider correcting the score on this occasion. I'm trying to think of someone pissy enough to leave me in the sh|t like that, but can't at the moment.

This post has been edited by bikespace: 28 August 2008 - 10:28 PM

[bdmc]

Right, I haave now scrubbed the section and amended the results. This now makes rider 'B' the winner and also the 2008 Champion. Rider 'A' is reduced to 2nd place but is now 4th in the championship and all other riders drop down 1 position.
Next day (still within the time limit) I receive 33 letter with protests. Was it thier fault that there was a problem between rider 'B' and the observer??. Why should rider 'A' be dropped to 2nd and the other 32 riders drop down 1 position. What do I do now???

[PERCE]

You're the C of C & made your ruling, stick by it.