What if the rider wasn't Pogi, but a lower league rider? Would that be ok?
For race organizer to give you a jersey to wear and you after being disqualified for it by UCI? Good luck with that.
What if the rider wasn't Pogi, but a lower league rider? Would that be ok?
Technically the rules dont work like that. A car gives you a pull up the mountain, it's the rider who gets fined/dq even if not his teams car doing it, or a fan pushing them. Same legal framework as anti-doping basically. ie it's the riders responsibility.For race organizer to give you a jersey to wear and you after being disqualified for it by UCI? Good luck with that.
Technically the rules dont work like that. A car gives you a pull up the mountain, it's the rider who gets fined/dq even if not his teams car doing it, or a fan pushing them. Same legal framework as anti-doping basically. ie it's the riders responsibility.
I really hope they look at it from other podium contenders perspective. Nobody wants to win from others DQ over wrongly coloured skinsuit.
Relax, it's like when it comes to safety. All you need to do is point a finger to some other person/organisation and it settles down after.https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ju...tone-maglia-rosa-skinsuit-with-purple-shorts/
"RCS Sport and people from Castelli tried to explain to the UCI commissaires that their own rules appear to allow the two-tone coloured skin suit but the race officials preferred to wait for senior officials at the UCI and perhaps even President David Lappartient to make a final decision. "
What a palaver!
I'm talking about the fact that rules apply in cycling even if it's not your fault for breaking them. Same as anti-doping. You eat something prohibited accidentally and test positive, it's almost impossible to escape a sanction, the rider is responsible. You get squeezed onto a footpath avoiding a dog but pedetrians on that footbath you will be DQ or fined even if not your fault.Not even remotely similar. On that occasion a mandatory video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4vRtC7IcY
I'm talking about the fact that rules apply in cycling even if it's not your fault for breaking them. Same as anti-doping. You eat something prohibited accidentally and test positive, it's almost impossible to escape a sanction, the rider is responsible. You get squeezed onto a footpath avoiding a dog but pedetrians on that footbath you will be DQ or fined even if not your fault.
This is not a good analogy - because in this particular case, the outfit was provided by race organisers. It is 100% their responsibility to provide an outfit according to the rulebook and not Pogs or the teams.I'm talking about the fact that rules apply in cycling even if it's not your fault for breaking them. Same as anti-doping. You eat something prohibited accidentally and test positive, it's almost impossible to escape a sanction, the rider is responsible. You get squeezed onto a footpath avoiding a dog but pedetrians on that footbath you will be DQ or fined even if not your fault.
Not really, if it wasn't for safety/comfort. If organizers gave any contender a pair of shorts they couldn't ride comfortably then the rider should always have the option. If the clothing wasn't adequate for bad weather, they're allowed to cover with rain jackets so what's the big deal?What if the rider wasn't Pogi, but a lower league rider? Would that be ok?
Just like Nike did with the Air Jordan ( at least according to the film “Air”): Nike decided they would simply ignore the standard restrictions (on shoe color) and pay the penalty fee each time Jordan wore them in a game. The fee was minor compared to the marketing budget, and the controversy about their decision was like free advertising for the shoe. Great example of thinking outside the (shoe)boxGonna be tough for the UCI as the regulations have always been DQ or Elimination. In fact they added to the rule in January where it also comes with a 50 to 2000 fine. I'm guessing they'll only fine him given it was RCS decision to break the rules technically but done so in good faith it seems. But that would set a new precedent that race organisers could try all sorts of things for marketing purposes and simply absorb the riders fines as a cost.
That is a very prominent element of Seattle’s annual solstice paradeAre riders allowed to ride naked?
I'm not saying it does. The rules are based on the same legal framework and how sports law and the rules that determine it get applied. Strict liability, look it up.Nop, this has nothing to do with doping and Pogi can't be responsible for it. At best the organiser will pay a fine if any.
If two colours ... match, they are similar or look attractive together:
In what other sport is it as hard to identify the race leader?Organisers shouldn't be providing a classification kit....it's an outdated system - what other sport would this happen? Absolute nonsense......
Alpine skiing and - you guessed it - ski jumping 😉 well, starting numbers have different background colour at least…Organisers shouldn't be providing a classification kit....it's an outdated system - what other sport would this happen? Absolute nonsense......
I'm not saying it does. The rules are based on the same legal framework and how sports law and the rules that determine it get applied. Strict liability, look it up.
What does happen though is UCI, race comms and the jury have discretion on applying their own rules or not ie they don't have to, even though they're written down. We see that balance all the time and think that will happen here with a fine only which was brought in in Januarys rules.