British Cycling reforms

[smutchin]

BC have voted to accept government proposals to make the sport's governing body more independent and diverse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40692580

I guess they didn't have a choice if they wanted to keep their funding, but it will be interesting to see if spreading the funds wider has any impact on Team GB's ability to win medals at the Olympics, which seems to have been BC's sole raison d'etre for the past 20 years.

The independence stuff is interesting - if it means putting up a proper firewall between BC and Team Sky, that can only be a good thing.

 

[S-Express]

which seems to have been BC's sole raison d'etre for the past 20 years.

The amount of funding was directly related to olympic and worlds success, so you can hardly blame them for that...

Looking at the quality of riders coming through the development programmes at the moment, I think Team GB's medal hopes will be looking good for some time yet..

 

[smutchin]

The amount of funding was directly related to olympic and worlds success, so you can hardly blame them for that...

Yes, but then you have to ask what is the point of British Cycling, and whether pursuit of Olympic medals is a worthwhile end in itself to justify throwing that amount of money at the organisation.

You make a very fair point though - as well as BC needing to reform, the government need to reassess their criteria for allocation of funds, and make it less results-driven (or more driven by different kinds of results).

 

[S-Express]

Yes, but then you have to ask what is the point of British Cycling, and whether pursuit of Olympic medals is a worthwhile end in itself to justify throwing that amount of money at the organisation.

Olympic/worlds results have directly driven the growth in cycling over the last few years, so I would say yes, it is justified.

 

[smutchin]

Olympic/worlds results have directly driven the growth in cycling over the last few years, so I would say yes, it is justified.

I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. But I'm going out now so I'll have to save any further thoughts for later...

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I'd quite like it if BC stopped their growing amount of red tape and regulations around running events; they seem to have lost sight of most events being run by committed amateurs and that clubs not are not corporations - BC are control freaky.

 

[oldroadman]

I'd quite like it if BC stopped their growing amount of red tape and regulations around running events; they seem to have lost sight of most events being run by committed amateurs and that clubs not are not corporations - BC are control freaky.

The problem is that insurers demand certain things, and we live in a litigious age. Risk assessments are needed for everything not just a bike race!
When a rider who crashes through their own inability/poor bike handling sues organisers, commissaires, BC, and anyone else the legal snakes can think of (even a mate in NEG was included in one!) via a no win no fee shark, you have to be able to protect yourself. Agree that races are run by volunteers and it can be a bit hard work, but the alternative of little or no or just contingency insurance (like your house, sir? Good so do we!) is not something anyone wants to consider. The trick is the balance between making it too difficult and properly showing that the sport is safe and well covered should an incident happen. Not easy and if I had the answers would probably be president - or not!

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

The problem is that insurers demand certain things, and we live in a litigious age. Risk assessments are needed for everything not just a bike race!
When a rider who crashes through their own inability/poor bike handling sues organisers, commissaires, BC, and anyone else the legal snakes can think of (even a mate in NEG was included in one!) via a no win no fee shark, you have to be able to protect yourself. Agree that races are run by volunteers and it can be a bit hard work, but the alternative of little or no or just contingency insurance (like your house, sir? Good so do we!) is not something anyone wants to consider. The trick is the balance between making it too difficult and properly showing that the sport is safe and well covered should an incident happen. Not easy and if I had the answers would probably be president - or not!

There is assessment of risk and management of risk; one should follow from the other. Not a blanket policy such as BC impose e.g. doubling the number of marshals "required" , not "recommended" irrespective of the assessment - and I think you need to give due regard to the term "volunteer" not meaning "irresponsible nobbers with no clue"; these are the same volunteers who have, for years, organised and risk assessed and managed events, the ones who undertake coaching, the ones called upon to be marshals and commissairres, the ones who actually know what they are doing. BC are heading in the wrong direction and are "overly risk managing" (my job involves risk assessment and risk management) in the perceived "litigious age" (which doesn't actually exist other than in the minds of insurers out to make money and those who enjoy making up rules)