Personally I am not a fan of this double recording stuff for random races. I stopped racing with an organiser giving bonus seconds to double recording, while it used to be one of my favourite events.
However, it is clearly written there. It’s a points race. Not a who is first at finish race. Hence final positioning (read finishing) is based on points. You made top five in points, you get disqualified because you did not double record. Might disagree but it is not an after the fact kind of thing. It’s there in the description.
The organiser raced himself. How many do you know that don’t Zwift and take up burden of organising? We should be happy with them, even if we don’t agree with race setup. Not drag their name through the mud because your virtual cup got taken away, that’s petty. Especially because you went through a public forum with your complaints.
I’d just say, thank you for organising races with a different setup as there are few long races. Double recording focus I myself wouldn’t and instead have wording that verification could be required. But I am not organising races so whatever I think is irrelevant and instead I benefit of work of others that do. Thank you to all of them.
I get your point, I just want, as a final objection, that it is not clear. If it was clear I was fine with it.
here’s what they state in the rules:
‘Dual recording:
Dual recording is mandatory for Top 5 finishers in A category’
Please go to the ZP page to see I don’t do cherry picking (can’t add links here)
It clearly says finishers and not top 5 in results/standing or anything alike.
Even if I do: I finshed 6t (I still think 7th, but the organiser won’t answer my question about that). I can’t see how 6th is top 5. Even if I’m 5th after another guy was DQ’ed, again that’s not written in the rules…
I do think this series has an awesome setup: long races on Saturday morning are cool. But then again if the organiser bends the rules to get himself up a place it’s just shady.
I’m just a B rider who wanted to help the team out for some team points. Course matched my strengths, so beated some A riders there. I just work out regularly and can’t afford myself dual record. I can’t see how this improves the series.
Again it is a good series, but they have to get their ■■■■ together in terms or how you write your rules. It is really important that the contesters know what will happen and if they don’t you should always act in favour of the contester and here they don’t do that. It’s a real shame.
Of course we should be thanking and promoting community run events like this that compete with the likes of ZRL. That’s why this kind of thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
And sorry, but ‘top 5 finishers’ is clearly is ambiguous (hence the above discussion!). Imagine you crossed the line 6th but ended up 1st on points, how would you describe that to your friends? I find it hard to imagine a world in which you wouldn’t say: ‘I finished 6th but I won on points’ or similar. Top 5 finishers means, most obviously the first 5 people to finish the race. If the rule means something different, fine, but it needs re-writing to be clearer. Top 5 riders would be better (though still ambiguous), Top 5 point scorers is apparently what is meant - so say that.
In terms of the ‘moving up into the top 5 because other people were DQ’d and so therefore getting a DQ as well’ thing. Think about the absurd positions that might create. Imagine you enter an A race as a B and come 40th in the 3rd chase group. BUT, only 4 people ahead of you dual recorded, so you move up into 5th and get a DQ as well. I think you could legitimately say ‘but I wasn’t anywhere near 5th! I was 40th!’ Again, if that is the rule, it needs to be made clear because currently there is no mention of it.
Finally, re-reading all of this, it all sounds so bloody petty - arguing over a DQ in a virtaul race in a Saturday league, but I think that just hammers home the lack of common sense at play here on behalf of DBR too. There is clearly an amicable solution here for everyone to say: ‘yeah that rule is ambiguous, your power numbers don’t suggest you were cheating, so we’ll waive it in these circumstances but let’s be clear going forward, the rule is… etc.’
As it is you have riders feeling hard done by because they gave it their all for 2hrs 30 and then geta DQ on a questionable reading of the rules, and a race organizer presumably with a headache because people are moaning about something they are organizing off their own back for the benefit of the community. (I’ve been there when you are orgnaizing and people are throwing up complaints, it ain’t a gerat feeling!)
What this whole situation seems to lack is some common sense.
Not everyone can afford additional power meters. Are you suggesting no one should be racing A without paying for assiomas or a new crank arm? Very exclusionary. It’s not like there are huge cat-A fields as it is. This ain’t the UCI works championships…
Also completely misses the point of this whole discussion, that they weren’t outside of the rules as drafted (given that they finished the race 6th and 7th), without some mental gymnastics.
I do have the tools to play. I don’t have the patience for elitist nonsense.
There is no requirement to have weigh ins for this event, so the dual recording is arbitrary at best. Only having one and not the other is just daft. It means nothing on it’s own. Furthermore, if this was asking for dual to validate spurious data, I’d actually understand it more. However, it is just asking for asking sake.
Honestly, this is the same elitist crap we see IRL on the racing scene and in some clubs, which is why i tend to avoid those. I don’t expect this at grass roots level Zwifting.
Finally, and to the point of this whole post. Both riders finished 6th and 7th in the race. So, they shouldnt have been DQd. Full stop.
I think we’ve successfully concluded the reason for the DQ and the various viewpoints from those.
It feels like keeping this thread open is only going to deteriorate so I’m closing it.
Event Organisers are entitled to run series as they see fit, even if this might not sit well in the eyes of some, but it allows you to pick and choose what you feel you would be happiest in (not directing “you” at any one person but a global you).
