Cycling Ireland AGM submissions open 2018

CramCycle

That time of year again where you have a chance to have meaningful debate on CI as a company, and unless something has changed, to bitch about road racing for four hours:

10th August 2018

Dear Club Secretary / Commission Chairperson / Provincial Secretary,

The AGM and Awards’ Night will be held on separate dates as shown below:

AGM - on the 10th of November at the Shearwater Hotel, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway

Awards’ Night - on the 24th of November at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Blanchardstown, Dublin.

Motions and Board Nominations to be returned no later than 1700 hours on the 21st of September 2018 to Cycling Ireland preferable by email to Contactus@cyclingireland.ie with the subject line “2018 CI AGM”. All submissions will be acknowledged. It is recommended that any motions of a sporting or technical nature should be discussed with the relevant Commission(s). See attached forms to be included with motion or nomination submissions.

Motions should be submitted using the motions form included with this notice. National Commissions and Provinces AGMs ideally should be held in advance of the deadline for motions and nominations to the Cycling Ireland AGM in order to facilitate submission of motions arising from National Commissions/Provinces AGMs. National Commissions and Provincial Executives are reminded that the standard requirement for final notification of Commission and Provinces AGMs is 21 days. This would require Commissions/Provinces to issue preliminary notice of their AGM and invite motions and nominations for vacant posts in sufficient time so as to be included on the final notice of their AGM.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Liffey,

Chief Executive Officer and Company Secretary,

Cycling Ireland.

Any suggestions or ideas for improvements or changes?

CramCycle

My first suggestion will be a ban on monetary prizes for A4 races. I suspect the prize money is simply a historical thing at this point. If your racing for the money, you'd be past A4 by now. Said several times here, few if any of us remember the money. A novelty mug from a race would be in my coffin as a memorial.

LCD

Only 1 season at A4 & then automatically moved up to A3. A4 was introduced as a beginners category. You have 1 season to learn a bit about open racing then move up.

CramCycle

LCD wrote: »

Only 1 season at A4 & then automatically moved up to A3. A4 was introduced as a beginners category. You have 1 season to learn a bit about open racing then move up.

Your right and wrong in equal measure (and in my opinion). How many A4s are new starters? Could you even field a race after next year if you done this?

I imagine a better proposal would be too have people flagged for upgrade if they are deemed good enough by comms or themselves.

Several new A4s might only make 3 races in the year, is that enough to learn? If you go down the road of an auto upgrade, at least three years, so there is no excuse for not learning.

A better suggestion might be too have it that any new racer must complete one year of a club league before racing, that can include a closed one or even the setting up of a newbie league between Corkagh and a few other basic circuits.

buffalo

CramCycle wrote: »

A better suggestion might be too have it that any new racer must complete one year of a club league before racing, that can include a closed one or even the setting up of a newbie league between Corkagh and a few other basic circuits.

While I like the sentiment, it's not great for riders who don't have a club league nearby. Clubs with smaller numbers who don't have the capacity to run a league and who are too far from others to create a joint one would suffer a vicious circle.

The clubs who did have leagues could also become victims of their own success, with league races becoming more like open races due to extra numbers.

And how many races do they have to do in this league? Do they qualify for open racing only if they've had no crashes?

An accreditation session (or two) would be a better bet I think. A session in each different province each month would get people on the road quickly, without adding too much extra pressure on clubs. If your club wants accreditation for riders, donate a marshal or two, CI give a comms to over-see it.

I can't make the AGM unfortunately.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

While I like the sentiment, it's not great for riders who don't have a club league nearby. Clubs with smaller numbers who don't have the capacity to run a league and who are too far from others to create a joint one would suffer a vicious circle.

A fair point, there are alot of leagues around the county though so it might not be that bad but maybe it could be one option.

The clubs who did have leagues could also become victims of their own success, with league races becoming more like open races due to extra numbers.

100%, and if they become to big in certain areas, they invite attention from unwanted sources which is also a risk.

And how many races do they have to do in this league? Do they qualify for open racing only if they've had no crashes?

I presume that you would have to do a minimum number, picking a number out of the air, lets say 5, non TT races. Crashes happen, if we disqualified every rider involved in a crash, half of us would be gone.

An accreditation session (or two) would be a better bet I think. A session in each different province each month would get people on the road quickly, without adding too much extra pressure on clubs. If your club wants accreditation for riders, donate a marshal or two, CI give a comms to over-see it.

I actually like this one, far more than the club league idea. We run accreditation sessions for our club league now, going through the bare basics. Even experienced riders must take part if they have been keeping their head low for a year or two. It would be easy to merge it it into the Comms records or even just refusing anything past an LC license until it is completed for new entrants.

There are some great people around the place, a simple program like what they have in track could be drawn up, as you say, one in each province every month for the first few months of the year. No accreditation no open racing. Club league sign off being a possible alternative but I can see some clubs refusing to sign off, and that is fair enough.

DKmac

CramCycle wrote: »

Your right and wrong in equal measure (and in my opinion). How many A4s are new starters? Could you even field a race after next year if you done this?

I imagine a better proposal would be too have people flagged for upgrade if they are deemed good enough by comms or themselves.

Several new A4s might only make 3 races in the year, is that enough to learn? If you go down the road of an auto upgrade, at least three years, so there is no excuse for not learning.

A better suggestion might be too have it that any new racer must complete one year of a club league before racing, that can include a closed one or even the setting up of a newbie league between Corkagh and a few other basic circuits.

This here follows the same old condescending view on A4 that because it's the entry level it's the ability of the riders that is the main cause of crashes. The majority of the A4 bunch from a personal point of view have been riding for a few years and there's very few issues with ability in my opinion.

The biggest issue in my opinion is that A4 races are an after-thought on the part of organisers. The distances are far too short. There's no reason why they can't be the same distance as A3, the ability level is still going to be relative to the other riders. If a junior can elect to ride A3 and ride a longer distance then surely grown men in A4 can ride the same distance.

Instead riders are forced into events that barely pass 65km, a distance most lads would do twice on a Sunday spin. More often than not this allows even a relatively fit novice making it to the finish with the main bunch. This in turn results in a massive sprint that involves every rider that was on the start line. A prime example was the Paddy Flanagan in Kildare last year was 48km and to no surprise ended up in a mass pile up.

This doesn't need a motion from CI to sort out just some responsibility on the part of race organisers.

bp_me

CramCycle wrote: »

Several new A4s might only make 3 races in the year, is that enough to learn? If you go down the road of an auto upgrade, at least three years, so there is no excuse for not learning.

The US model of 10 race finishes might be easiest to implement... but they have a cat 5 specifically for that purpose.

Macy0161

I definitely think a race training/ accreditation would be a good step. I took more out of the two (out of four they ran) club organised race training sessions I did than I did from a full club spring league. Handicap leagues are not the same as an open race, in my albeit limited experience.

CramCycle

DKmac wrote: »

This here follows the same old condescending view on A4 that because it's the entry level it's the ability of the riders that is the main cause of crashes. The majority of the A4 bunch from a personal point of view have been riding for a few years and there's very few issues with ability in my opinion.

100% I ride with A3s and A2s in league races where I wonder how comms haven't booted them from races for their poor behaviour. The majority of A4s are grand but won't ever have the fitness for A3, I am among them. This serves the learning group idea well as they then have experienced riders in the bunch, showing them how its done. I am now dismissing the mandatory upgrade idea.

The biggest issue in my opinion is that A4 races are an after-thought on the part of organisers. The distances are far too short. There's no reason why they can't be the same distance as A3, the ability level is still going to be relative to the other riders. If a junior can elect to ride A3 and ride a longer distance then surely grown men in A4 can ride the same distance.

I wouldn't agree, timings and splits are difficult to get right and when you get it wrong, the abuse is something awful and uncalled for. Many A4 races are shorter for the reasons of timings, clearing the road at the request of locals and gardai, as well as letting the marshals get out quicker. A lot of lads are (rightly) bullied into marshalling and that extra 30minutes of a lap could coat you a few marshals. I'd love longer A4 racea but thanks to a load of regular lads neutralising every break until others give up (typically riders who never actually contest the sprint but would have been strong enough to hold/help a break), A4 can't be trusted to keep up enough of a pace so get shorter courses. Might be wrong but that's my view.

Instead riders are forced into events that barely pass 65km, a distance most lads would do twice on a Sunday spin. More often than not this allows even a relatively fit novice making it to the finish with the main bunch. This in turn results in a massive sprint that involves every rider that was on the start line. A prime example was the Paddy Flanagan in Kildare last year was 48km and to no surprise ended up in a mass pile up.

Would more power to Comms to hand out warnings and bans would be good. I like long races but short races should not be a huge issue. I see some club leagues running the same length races, with the same if not bigger bunches without issue weekly. The length of the race is not the issue. Riders who haven't a hope contesting from the back needs to be stamped out.

Taxuser1

Could races have unplaced M40s-60s points and prizes please? Just some recognition of a hard day in the saddle being beaten up by young children.

Beasty

Taxuser1 wrote: »

Could races have unplaced M40s-60s points and prizes please? Just some recognition of a hard day in the saddle being beaten up by young children.

What have the M70s done to upset you???

I suspect the issue is as much tracking everyone over the line. Although there may be finishing cameras would someone want to try and wade through all the footage essentially looking at almost all placings. Equally I presume many races still rely on the eagle eyes of helpers

CramCycle

Pretty much, you could submit it but I imagine the Comms would over rule it as a technical issue. Plenty in that group getting points anyway which would indicate that unplaced is unnecessary.

Taxuser1

Beasty wrote: »

What have the M70s done to upset you???

I suspect the issue is as much tracking everyone over the line. Although there may be finishing cameras would someone want to try and wade through all the footage essentially looking at almost all placings. Equally I presume many races still rely on the eagle eyes of helpers

And the m70s of course but not sure there are too many open racing outside the IVCA.

There is a sizeable number of m40/50 A1s 2s though. Some close to the pace but not quite placing week to week. Surely there needs to be some allowance for age, old.

jimbobaloobob

Focus or incentivise clubs to be about racing first. Clubs must host or collaborate with other clubs in an official way to host a race or see some sort of penalty (higher club fee for non provision of racing).
Cycling Ireland in general needs to steer cycling back to racing and away from running charity events under the banner or cycling. This dilutes the racing and quality of racing and imo is a get around for fundraisers on insurance needed to run events on public roads.

Taxuser1

CramCycle wrote: »

Pretty much, you could submit it but I imagine the Comms would over rule it as a technical issue. Plenty in that group getting points anyway which would indicate that unplaced is unnecessary.

fairly sweeping generality. plenty maybe at A3, definitely not above that.

CramCycle

Taxuser1 wrote: »

fairly sweeping generality. plenty maybe at A3, definitely not above that.

A misunderstanding I think. I meant at A3, I understood Masters riders are allowed stay in A3, if they want or downgrade to it at the end of a season. Hence why it would be unnecessary.

CramCycle

Is there any point in suggesting that we go back to recognising ICVA licenses, something I hear ICVA members mention every year (I am not one), and it was a nice system when it operated. I cannot remember why it stopped, is it simply that the insurance is not good enough or does not cover enough?

RobFowl

IVCA and CI (I am a memebr of both) have some differences which could probably be classed as historic and not necessarily due to cycling issues.
Both organisations full to the brim of great people and I hope they can work together more constructively in the future

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

IVCA and CI (I am a memebr of both) have some differences which could probably be classed as historic and not necessarily due to cycling issues.
Both organisations full to the brim of great people and I hope they can work together more constructively in the future

Do you think it is worth suggesting, historic differences will stay differences unless members suggest otherwise. If it is a case that the insurances are incompatible, that is fair enough, but if it is a case that the cover is suitable, then I would be at a loss unless CIs insurer wouldn't do it. Even the option of just taking a leisure license alongside your ICVA license, so you are a member but your not forking over huge coin for both.

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

Do you think it is worth suggesting, historic differences will stay differences unless members suggest otherwise. If it is a case that the insurances are incompatible, that is fair enough, but if it is a case that the cover is suitable, then I would be at a loss unless CIs insurer wouldn't do it. Even the option of just taking a leisure license alongside your ICVA license, so you are a member but your not forking over huge coin for both.

I've stuck my head over the parapet in the past and it would take a hell of a lot for me to do it again

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

I've stuck my head over the parapet in the past and it would take a hell of a lot for me to do it again

I'd be happy to put it forward unless their is a technical reason not too do it.

Beasty

I suspect there's an insurance issue within CI that's not allowing non CI members to participate in CI events (with 1 day licences in place for non racing events)

Insurance has definitely risen on the agenda of both organisations. We also have UCI rules dictating that non UCI affiliated clubs/teams are not recognised and an organisation operating outside the CI umbrella is a bit of an issue. Having said that the UK has the equivalent LVRC operating outside GB Cycling.

The only practical solution may well be for the IVCA to affiliate to CI but I believe there's a bit of history there and we may need to await some of the old codgers riding up to that velodrome in the sky before we see much progress on that front.

magicbastarder

random aside, but i looked up the IVCA on facebook - and the URL for their website in the 'about' section on facebook brings you to the irish venture capital association.

Beasty

Just to add there was a proposal put forward to the IVCA AGM requiring the organisation to stop sponsoring CI events like the Junior Tour and Ras na mBan. Fortunately it was withdrawn before the AGM. The IVCA have been great supporters of both events and with other sponsors such as An Post and the NDC already pulling out the Ras na mBan would certainly struggle without them.

buffalo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Motions were on the Final AGM notice

Seems like they're getting tough on "offending public decency".

Newry Wheelers seem to think everyone's being upgraded far too quickly!

Motion 15 Proposed by Newry Wheelers.
Chapter T3 Upgrading Points Table. To reduce the number of points available to A2 A3 riders


Motion 16 Proposed by Newry Wheelers.
Chapter T3 Upgrading. Attempt to reduce the rate at which A3 riders upgrade to A2


Motion 17 Proposed by Newry Wheelers.
Chapter T3 Upgrading. Attempt to reduce the rate at which A2 riders upgrade to A1.


Motion 19 Proposed by Newry Wheelers.
3 (f) An A1 rider with less than 6 points at year end will be automatically downgraded to A2 with 5 points.

CramCycle

Reading through it, nothing overly controversial.

Motion 1 I'd amend to a ban for that race and a note by the Comms on the online system. Repeat offences get a year ban. I presume, as offensive as the pics in the other thread are, that they are just talking about taking a possible out in the open.

Motion 2 reads oddly. Are they saying if you lap the field you have to do extra laps? Can someone explain it to me

Not sure I agree with all Newrys motions either, it will just bring back the issues we all gave our about only a few years ago about upgrades being too slow. With Juniors possibly increasing in points before upgrade, I think some of it is ill thought out.

Taxuser1

slow year for motions

if in doubt

Well this seems to have come and gone without any major excitement.

Míceal Concannon back on the board to replace Jack Watson who's been there since God knows when - nice speech and presentation yesterday for him and he'll surely be missed. Míceal has a massive amount of experience so good to have him back involved.

Connacht now has a member on the board so there's representation for all 4 provinces now at least as well which is a positive step too.

Good to see the leisure commission back at the AGM and they certainly made up for their absence over the last few years with discussion going on for about half an hour. Impressed with the chap who got up to speak on behalf of the commission - probably wasn't expecting half as many questions as he got but it can only be a good thing having the majority of the membership represented like that.

It seems we can't go a season without needing to change something with points and A3's especially, we're never going to come up with something that keeps everybody happy so we may as well change things every year it seems...

eeeee

Did all the motions pass?

CramCycle

I can't wait for the carnage at a crit if two riders lap the bunch and just tag onto the back, trying to get through as everyone else eases off.