[Closed] Enduro World Series controversy

What is shuttling?

Being given lifts back up the hill in a van.

getting a lift to the top in a car ! im assuming in practice its still not allowed iirc the course is open for a week b4 hand to practise ?

Why not disqualified? Event Rules say you will be disqualified for shuttling.

Brian Lopes should whine less about people 20 places ahead of him and race faster.

Barel is in the wrong, but Lopes is always the first to jump on this when, frankly, he's not doing very well.

Why should cheats be tolerated? I'm with lopes on this for speaking out.

Lopes isn't even racing

It isn't clear that the "race rules" also apply in practice, to be honest I wouldn't expect them to apply. I think the penalty is harsh, if that's how they expect it to be, they should clarify the rule.

Why should cheats be tolerated? I'm with lopes on this for speaking out.

+1
The likes of David Millar get welcomed with open arms though so doubt if it'll go any where

more info here......

Whistler valley, Crankworx created a rule that outlined no outside assistance (including using a vehicle to assist) would be allowed during the event. This rule was further explained and clarified in a mandatory athlete’s breakfast scheduled on Friday morning and hosted by the Crankworx Whistler organisers. Rider’s who chose not to attend this briefing missed crucial information regarding course changes, details of shuttling and race specific information. We are not responsible for educating riders who choose to miss planned briefings. Following the submission of evidence by a number of sources and a discussion with Fabien where he cooperated fully, admitted to a lack of knowledge of the rule due to team communications and an admission of his use of a vehicle, the organisation chose to apply a five minute penalty to his race time, removing any advantage that may have been gained from his use of the vehicle. We are all now looking forward to an incredible race here tomorrow.
Regards, Chris Ball, Director, Enduro World Series”

tbh as cheating goes it sounds relatively minor (uplifts were aloud durinf practise at earlier events iirc)compared to karim amour getting an off season ban given anonymity and not dropped by his sponsor for testing positive for a masking agent hence why chris ball banned him from EWS
http://bikemagic.com/news/talk-to-frank-clive-forth-investigates-doping-in-enduro-part-1-of-2.html
http://bikemagic.com/news/ttf-part-2-clive-forth-interviews-karim-amour.html#comment-79520

The likes of David Millar get welcomed with open arms though so doubt if it'll go any where

He was banned for two years in 2004 after admitting taking banned performance-enhancing drugs

Given that the rule was clarified at the riders briefing, then I think that the penalty is fair. 5 minutes means he will absolutely score no points.

The series is in it's first year, they need to establish some continuity of rules and regulations between races in the future, but I think its good that a bit of common sense can be applied instead of bringing out the ban hammer for every mistake made.

Lets not turn mountain biking into a sport like formula 1 where regulations override racing.

Those Clive Forth interviews seem a bit pointless eh? Good idea to tackle the subject but it looks like he felt too awkward to put the question directly to Karim.

The likes of David Millar get welcomed with open arms though so doubt if it'll go any where

Read the story before you get on your soapbox matey, Barel's already been penalised quite strongly.

Looks like Syndicate riders, Rachel Atherton, Lopes and a few others consider Barel a bit of a cheat in general, reading between the lines of their tweets.

Served ban and returned? Unless you would like people to serve your punishments rather than those handed down by the governing body.

Returned = let off, life ban or nowt

[quote=rOcKeTdOg ]Served ban and returned? Unless you would like people to serve your punishments rather than those handed down by the governing body.
Returned = let off, life ban or nowt

So you want your rules then? Would you like to make up rules for all sports?

[url] http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Fabien-Barel-In-The-Penalty-Box-Five-Minutes-For-Shuttling.html [/url]

Seems harsh to me. very good point that you can't actually shuttle the west side trails. he just drove his car 1.5km from creekside to function junction!

Is this the Rachel Atherton that cut the tape at Windham World Cup, gained a clear advantage and got away with it scot free.

Well is there a formal proof it's Amour or just a case of 'pas de fumée sans feu'?

On the subject of controversy, I think there should not be any change of tyres or bits in the bikes unless the rider carries them with him

That's pretty interesting... Thinking about it, I did exactly the same thing (as did others) at the king of the hill, in practice- rode the glentress side, drove over to cademuir, rode that. You'd never consider that "shuttling", it's just "Getting to where the trails are". Think he got his point across well.

I think it's a reasonable penalty: He missed the riders briefing so may not have been aware it was not allowed. However, ignorance is no excuse and therefore he deserved to be given a penalty. If he had been at the team briefing and still used the uplift, then a DQ would have been justified, together with a ban from future events as well.

As it is, fair enough.

mikey74 - Member

and still used the uplift,

He didn't use an uplift, though. This is what rankles a bit, the 5 minutes is supposed to offset the benefit he gained, what benefit is that? A short pedal on the flat. If his account is accurate, anyway.

Then northwind he should have pedal then.

Even if you believe he was trying to cheat, he didn't get 5 minutes worth of benefit. In fact by his account he got no real benefit. That was effectively a DQ, made it impossible to compete, disproportionate IMO (and a bit mealy mouthed, either give a real DQ or give a sensible time penalty, don't dress one up as the other)

youve gotta draw the line somewhere though northwind

no shuttling means no driving between stages and you have to start the trails from the start, seems fair enough

The benefit he gained is irrelevant. He broke the rules. End of story.

Is this the Rachel Atherton that cut the tape at Windham World Cup, [b]gained a clear advantage[/b] and got away with it scot free.

You know what - I watched that and she didn't. If she'd cut the tape on the inside of a corner it would be a different matter. But she messed up a jump, landed out of shape and went out the left-hand side of the track before a right-hand corner. Probably lost 5 seconds recovering her balance, getting back on track and getting back up to speed. That's why the UCI didn't DQ her for not going back up to where she left the track - she gained no advantage from a genuine racing mistake.

I also read that there was an express queue on uplifts only for Canadian competitors during practice. It seems that the local orgonisers were trying everything they could to minimize the practice of foreign riders, while maximusing the advantage to the locals.

Anyone know what the vague whinging from Minnaar et al is all about? Barel has always been portrayed as Mr clean, is there a dark underside we don't get to see or is it just some random sourness?

I can't get over Lopes calling anyone out fro being a cheat. As one of the first to take SPDs into BMX racing when toe clips were specifically banned, I don't think he should be throwing any stones from his particular greenhouse.

kimbers - Member

no shuttling means no driving between stages and you have to start the trails from the start

See, I would take "no shuttling" as "no uplifts", or at most "no getting lifts from one point to another". You can't shuttle yourself, that's just plain ol logic. I've not seen anything in the rules to suggest that all practice had to start from the same place. Perhaps that was in the briefing, perhaps not. But that's the sort of thing you really need to be clear about, it's unintuitive and uncommon.

But anyway, assuming (lacking anything to the contrary) that his account's right, it's a technical infringement only, no unsporting aspect, no actual advantage gained. So Chris Ball says " the organisation chose to apply a five minute penalty to his race time, removing any advantage that may have been gained from his use of the vehicle"- but that's not what they've done at all, this goes way beyond that- it's punitive not corrective.

SO I reckon they've made an arse of it. Nobody'll be happy- I'm not happy that the race was messed with, fans won't be happy as one of the main contenders was knocked out, Canyon and Barel won't be happy... critics won't be happy as he wasn't dq'd, rules lawyers won't be happy as the rules were neither enforced strictly, nor clear enough. Total loss.

I'm with Norhtwind.

It seems in the rush to be seen to do something they've gone a bit too far and made a complete a*$e of it. Pleasing or appeasing no-one in the process.

Still I'm sure they'll learn from it, it's early days after all and at least it's not the UCI.

I also read that there was an express queue on uplifts only for Canadian competitors during practice. It seems that the local orgonisers were trying everything they could to minimize the practice of foreign riders, while maximusing the advantage to the locals.

Could it be to minimize the impact of foreigner riding like pigs and cutting corners?

Could it be to minimize the impact of foreigner riding like pigs and cutting corners?

Nice assumption, that anyone other than the natives cut corners.

Assuming the tape isn't messed with, what's the issue anyway? you don't have to follow the sheep line you know...

Speeder - Member
Anyone know what the vague whinging from Minnaar et al is all about? Barel has always been portrayed as Mr clean, is there a dark underside we don't get to see or is it just some random sourness?

I think there was a pic tweeted (by peaty?) of barel with his helmet off on a transition stage at the first round and he didnt get penalised for that one so maybe they are making up for it?
https://twitter.com/StevePeat/status/336920990112182272

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Fabien-Barel-In-The-Penalty-Box-Five-Minutes-For-Shuttling.html

Interview with Fab on his side of it.

que, more comments on twitter, this is an interesting one 😉

I really do get the impression that lopes, peaty, minaar dont like barel

lopes implies that barels being told off because hes got a rep for cheating at the ews

But anyway, assuming (lacking anything to the contrary) that his account's right, it's a technical infringement only, no unsporting aspect, no actual advantage gained.

If there was no advantage to it, why on earth did he go to all the hassle of getting in his car?

Yep, there's definatly some history there on all sides

Well, this might be Barel's squeaky clean image going down the pan...

Given that. Incident happened on the practice day I don't see what advantage he got. If it happened on race day then DQ.

I also think that enduro should get rid of all outside assistance and riders should not be allowed to change tyres and various other bits for each stage. They should also have to take all their food and drink with then for the entire race If it is supposed to be more representative of what most of us o

Greg Minnaar ?@GregMinnaar 14m

I love the sob story on @pinkbike. 3 of the 5 Enduro rounds you are accused of cheating.... Never smoke without fire!

Juicy!

Some of the PB comments made out that all he was doing was driving from his accommodation to the trail.

I assume the organisers wanted the riders to only ride the course as practice and not session particular stages.

[img] [/img]

Remember that the Syndicate have the ear of Chris Ball with Santa Cruz supplying bikes to Chris at a reasonable rate. Not that I am adding fuel to the fire 😆 😉

They should also have to take all their food and drink with then for the entire race If it is supposed to be more representative of what most of us o

Dunno, but I rarely take a full days water with me. 750ml bottle and make a note of where the streams are on the map if I'm out for more than 3 hours. I've got a camelpack, but even that rarely get's filled, filled it weighs half as much as my road bike!

Changeing tyres seems a bit like cheating, but assistance with spares is OK in my book, to be uncompetative in a series because your mech broke 30s into the first stage would be unfair on the sponsors who muct invest tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) into the series. Maybe the solution is neutral service like road raceing?

Chaps, lets not let the truth get in the way of some harmless character assassination eh?

He only drove 1.5km apparently.

Why would a super-fit multiple world champion need to drive such a short way?

Was it up a steep hill?

Cedric's comments and the clip at 2:10ish onward.... sorry, no embedded linky, not youtube/vimeo.

[url= http://www.epictv.com/media/podcast/crankworx-daily---enduro-world-series---handlebar-steve/238338 ]Crankworx Les 2 Alpes.[/url]

Cedric is a taking the mic. Shirley

I don't think he is.

aracer - Member

If there was no advantage to it, why on earth did he go to all the hassle of getting in his car?

To get to the start of the stages- he lives nearby. A convenience, but not a competitive advantage. If you're driving from your house to ride a trail, do you drive near to the trail then park, or do you drive to somewhere a couple of miles away then ride there?

If you're driving from your house to ride a trail, do you drive near to the trail then park, or do you drive to somewhere a couple of miles away then ride there?

That's not a comparable situation - there's a big difference between driving a bit further when you're already in a car and choosing not to get in a car in the first place. If it was more convenient then that is clearly an advantage, whether that meant he was a little less tired or had a bit more time to do other things in his preparation (I've used a car when competing for similar reasons when I'd normally ride to where the event was).

rules is rules
barel broke them
(hes also broken rules at one other round at least an gone unpunished)

if hed attended the rider briefing hed have known

chris ball has also stated that karim amor wont be allowed to race EWS because he tested positive for a masking agent

he sounds harsh but fair

(the fact that a lot of the cool kids on the circuit dont seem to like barel is something else)

I seem to remember Fabian riding 'peak-less' in a WC DH race after 'everyone' had agreed to ride with peaks attached, think that kind of thing doesn't help going forward.......
Shame, as he can really ride a bike and is always worth listening to when interviewed.

aracer - Member

That's not a comparable situation - there's a big difference between driving a bit further when you're already in a car and choosing not to get in a car in the first place. If it was more convenient then that is clearly an advantage,

How far away do you have to live from the trail before you're allowed to drive there, then? If his house was 20 miles away would that be OK?

It wasnt 20 Miles away it was 1.5 kilometers, even I would ride that and I'm fat, lazy, unfit and slow. I would expect a world class athlete to ride 1.5k even if its up a big hill.

I_Ache - Member
It wasnt 20 Miles away it was 1.5 kilometers, even I would ride that and I'm fat, lazy, unfit and slow. I would expect a world class athlete to ride 1.5k even if its up a big hill.

I think the punishment reflects that. He got a 5 min penalty, not the automatic DQ for shuttling. All riders were supposed to start in Whistler, he drove to the trail. Small violation, but a violation none the less - if he'd attended the rider briefing like everyone else, he'd have known.

Think it's all fair enough - they could probably have DQ'd him by the letter of the law.

So how many miles away would he have to live before you'd allow him to drive there instead of riding? (and do you think there's anything in the rules about this?)

honourablegeorge - Member

I think the punishment reflects that. He got a 5 min penalty, not the automatic DQ for shuttling.

He got DQ'd in all but name- it's like giving someone a 10 second penalty in the 100 metres.

But to put it another way... Since it wasn't uplifting or shuttling, apparently the infringement is that you had to start from the race start to practice any stages. Was that specifically in the briefing? We don't know. But that's a weird enough rule that it needed to be properly in the rules, not just an addition at a voluntary briefing.

Wouldn't you be better off asking Chris Ball northwind?

I think hes being made an example of northwind to stop the likes of the shuttling that was seen in the practice at the 1st round

well its worked its as high profile as you like and now everyone will know

maybe he wasnt the only one
but the fact that hes got a rep as a bit of a cheater at previous rounds probably dint help him

from chris ball

Crankworx created a rule that outlined no outside assistance (including using a vehicle to assist) would be allowed during the event. This rule was further explained and clarified in a mandatory athlete’s breakfast scheduled on Friday morning and hosted by the Crankworx Whistler organisers. Riders who chose not to attend this briefing missed crucial information regarding course changes, details of shuttling and race specific information. We are not responsible for educating riders who choose to miss planned briefings.

So how many miles away would he have to live before you'd allow him to drive there instead of riding?

Further away than the point where they were supposed to ride from would probably be a good start.

aracer - Member

Further away than the point where they were supposed to ride from would probably be a good start.

Fair point- but we'll never know exactly what they were told and whether it was clear that practice had to start from the village, especially since the organisers keep talking about shuttling (which at the very least I think you've got to agree is open to interpretation) , and since it was so important that they didn't bother to put it in the written rules and only announced it in a voluntary briefing. TBH I don't understand how anyone can think that's a good way to run an event... Rules need to be clear but unusual rules more so.

It must have been clear enough for every other rider in the event to abide by the rule

spawnofyorkshire
It must have been clear enough for every other rider in the event to abide by the rule

Nope. apparently there were several riders doing the same thing. They just made an example of Barel.

I think it's a bit of a grey area and they overreacted, the punishment didn't fit the crime. It was during practice, not the race itself and Barel would have been, in real world practical terms "stupid" to not do what he did. His accommodation was closer to the trails he was practicing than the lift.

There is a deeper subtext here though. A lot of the riders seem to still be smarting from Barel's victory at the first round where he apparently used motor bikes to shuttle during midweek practice leading up to the event. This is what I believe put Peaty, Minnaar and Lopes' nose out of joint. However, according to FB, many riders were already there before him, were already doing exactly that several days earlier so he was only evening the playing field for himself.

The Syndicate boys arrived later again, and couldn't get the same practice. This is also apparently why Minnaar tried to hound dog Barel on several stages, to follow his lines, but by his own admission, Fabien was just much too fit and strong and he simply couldn't keep up. Shuttles or not.

Wouldn't you be better off asking Chris Ball northwind?

I think hes being made an example of northwind to stop the likes of the shuttling

Commas, apostrophes? Can you be DQed? 😉 😆

I seem to remember Fabian riding 'peak-less' in a WC DH race after 'everyone' had agreed to ride with peaks attached,

This is exactly the sort of shit that annoys me about the whole DH scene. More concerned with image than winning! If it's about winning, and someone thinks they can gain an advantage by running an aero set up (Skinsuits, anyone?) then why not? Or, is it more important to look all of teh awsumz in your baggy flappy gnar pyjamas?

Nope. apparently there were several riders doing the same thing. They just made an example of Barel.

OK i'll revise...

It must have been clear enough for the majority of riders to abide by the rule.

Were any of the other 'big name' riders accused of this as well? If not then it's his own fault for not being at the rider briefing or having a representative there

Or, is it more important to look all of teh awsumz in your baggy flappy gnar pyjamas?

Im sure theres an element of that, but its also important to keep sponsors happy or there would be no series

Surely winning races would keep more sponsors more happy? (If it is about the competition and not the image, that is...)

Imagine if DH ski racers turned up on steezy twin tips with baggy trousers round their ankles a la nu-skool ski grom!

I think those asking why he didn't just ride the 1.5km are missing the point he made that the 99 is a highway and I would therefore assume to not be very cycle friendly.

I think Fab has just been slapped down by the cool kids on this one after years of pushing the envelope. He's almost certainly not the only person to cut a pole here or there without pushing back up(see CG's comments) or to have worn his full face on top of his head but he's almost certainly the most high profile rider to have done so.

The EWS have at this point just got egg on their faces as no matter how you define it, there's no way one man can "shuttle" and there's minimal advantage to be gained from driving to the bottom of a trail.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Surely winning races would keep more sponsors more happy? (If it is about the competition and not the image, that is...)

But if they're all wearing the similar things there's no advantage/disadvantage and the 'baggies' (which aren't all that baggy anymore) definitely look better for DH (imho).

Spectators are what's important, for sponsors and for the event organisers. Won't matter a jot how quick people are if no-ones watching. Seem to be plenty of people enjoying watching DH at the moment so I don't thing the baggy/skins thing is worth bothering with.

Troy Lee Designs wouldn't sell that many replica skinsuits, which is what the main concern with lycra in DH was...

Mark of this parish has been asking questions of Greg Minnar (with resposnes) on [url= https://twitter.com/singletrackmark/status/367590179726688257 ]Twitter[/url]

Minaars got it in for Barel!

maybe he does believe fabs been doping, maybe he just really doesnt like the guy!

Im always amazed at how the pros come back from serious inujries including Barel and laterly Gracia

tbh since armstrong and the exposure of systematic doping in road cycling Im suspicious of all athletes at the top level

This is getting silly now, I read Greg's original tweet as being ironic in part, and a number of the MTB media have taken it as a statement.

Mark's made himself look a bit silly there IMHO.

This is exactly the sort of shit that annoys me about the whole DH scene. More concerned with image than winning! If it's about winning, and someone thinks they can gain an advantage by running an aero set up (Skinsuits, anyone?) then why not? Or, is it more important to look all of teh awsumz in your baggy flappy gnar pyjamas?

Well if it really was all about winning (by virtue of being fastest rather than best looking), then they'd fit engines. Is there any differance between allowing engines and allowing skinsuits, both make you faster for less/same effort.

The rule is pretty simple, clothes have to be baggy (IIRC the test is a 1" fold in the material at various points), and the bikes can't have engines.

The whole thing was solved when Mojo turned up to the WC in Fort Willian in those black wet-look gimp suits which actualy made small children cry (as well as costing an arm and a leg and being even more aero than lycra).

It has been deemed that the image is important for the success of the sport (which I agree with).
The groms aren't going to want to replicate a bunch of lycra clad perverts.