Re: Re:
True, but the spirit of my point I don't think is invalidated. As far as the rule about 9 months from the record attempt, well, then, I'm only to blame for having been given missinformation from the report I read.
As far as the custom 3D printed bars go, they would seem to be a breech of the very Article 1.3.007 you present, which my source also reported. Unless custom-fit isn't to be considered "designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance." Once you start using custom-fit then you violate the intention to ban any form of a bike that doesn't belong to a standard production, and hence not have any part uniquely fabricated for a singlerider (to improve perormance) the rule presupposes.
Of course there are ways to interpret the rule differently other than its intention, but that doesn't of course change what was intended, which should be the basis for the UCI's verdict in this case.
King Boonen said:rhubroma said:djpbaltimore said:The coach of the rider whose record was just broken might have a teensy bit of a conflict of interest on this particular topic.
This is actually irrelevant in this case is, because what was denounced is actual a fact. The UCI clearly states that no custum-fit production of any part of the bike for the purpose of improving performance is allowed (and that the bike has to be commercially on the market at the time, which it was not). This boils down, therefore, to a techincal consideration and the rule governing it (and, yes, in this sense Wiggins definitely brook the rule). Obviously the UCI has every business-political motivation to not bring him to task, but as Flo stated, if the rule isn't being applied because he is Bradly Wiggins (and the only rational conclusion is that, yes, this is the case), then the denouncing coach and his rider's performance have been defrauded and "justice" has not behaved impartially.
What happens now? Well either the UCI has to change the rule, which would be tacit admission of their guilt, or not change the rule and be forced to turn a blind eye to everyone else who has parts custom manufactured as Wiggins did to improve performance. This is still an admission, though, that it did not apply the rule in Bradley's case.
If you argue with someone you really should look up the rules beforehand:
"Article 1.3.007 of the UCI regulations state that a bike “designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.” According to the UCI’s rules, the bike must become commercially available within nine months of Wiggins’ attempt."
I'm guessing you can also custom order some 3D printed bars if you want. I agree with you and think there is an issue with the part in italics with the titanium bars, although it could be argued either way.
True, but the spirit of my point I don't think is invalidated. As far as the rule about 9 months from the record attempt, well, then, I'm only to blame for having been given missinformation from the report I read.
As far as the custom 3D printed bars go, they would seem to be a breech of the very Article 1.3.007 you present, which my source also reported. Unless custom-fit isn't to be considered "designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance." Once you start using custom-fit then you violate the intention to ban any form of a bike that doesn't belong to a standard production, and hence not have any part uniquely fabricated for a singlerider (to improve perormance) the rule presupposes.
Of course there are ways to interpret the rule differently other than its intention, but that doesn't of course change what was intended, which should be the basis for the UCI's verdict in this case.