Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
I immediately thought of F1 drivers swearing on the radio when this came up. It's a pretty regular occurrence.
I agree completely with the 2nd language difficulties and the in the moment possibilities. But Amaury covered his mouth when he said Fuck and said he had no other word for that and very quickly they were apologizing. It means he knew it wasn't the best word.... which means it has been brought to the riders (I have seen Bruni do it too) attention. I made the origina post and a bit of a joke and a bit of a come on guys comment. I just want them to be more marketable and make the money they deserve.
The change is FIA rally only cam about after all of the drivers refused to talk to interviewers or only answered in their (no english) native language to protest the new FIA rules fining drivers for swearing.
Pretty sure after chucking yourself/life through snow, wind, rain and just down right treacherous conditions. I am doubtful the first thing that crosses their mind is offending a dad, all because he dropped the f bomb. Adrenalin and dopamine levels will be peaking! Is live TV, wouldn't be live if they lagged it to bleep it.
I watch it on the hill whilst i am at event (if signal permits).
Pretty sure you know the feeling of bombing a fast lap, mind is pretty hazy when you hit the bottom!
We're talking about two different things, though, right?
Sorry, another long one.
1. Is it acceptable to use it (it = offensive language) with each other and in high-emotion moments? Secondarily, is it acceptable to use it on-broadcast by anyone of any language in any language?
2. Does it help or hurt "DH Racing" from the perspective of "attracting outside money" with its use?
I have some opinions but I understand that my opinions may differ from others.
1. Its use acceptable? Sure. I'm fine with it. I swear more than is ideal. It's a habit that developed and it's become a part of my language that I try to control. I see its effect with people and to some it's off-putting and to others it's not and is nigh-on endearing. On broadcast? Well, I have another question whose answer also answers that 1b question in a second.
2. Does it help or hurt DH Racing attract outside money? Yes, it absolutely hurts it. Certain brands who would be willing to be associated with DH will not be associated with something that potentially positions them as offensive. Why did a bunch of brands leave Twitter? Because their content and logo and website and products were being seen next to openly white-supremacist, violent, and/or braindead tweets. Brands don't want to be associated with that stuff. Hell, the language I use helps/hurts me attracting clients to my business. Luckily, my business is pretty...busy...and has a limit to scaling so me using specific language (both industry language and casual language) that weeds out people who are not an ideal fit is not a bad thing.
THE BIG QUESTION: What's the goal here? What's the ACTUAL goal? Is everyone on-board?
Is the main goal to get outside money to prop up the sport? Then button up those post-race polo shirts and prepare your list of sponsors to mention in every interview. THAT sort of presentation is what will get the most brands to sign up to provide the most money. That goal excludes the use of a lot of swearing.
Is the main goal to have great racers racing great races and creating great storylines? Then let Ronan say "fuck," let kit designers take chances, get an on-air presenter who is very familiar with the rulebook, buy the rights to rebroadcast clips from WynTV, and give the viewers drama.
Other sports have found the balance of seeking money vs creating a dramatic sport spectacle. DH hasn't found it yet. The true answer is in the middle of those extremes, obviously. For me, I'm happy to purely have the second main goal option. I want great racing. I'm also not trying to bankroll the entire UCI DH World Cup Series. We don't have large enough a viewer base who would get on-board enough with second main goal option to attract large sponsors who just to reach customers that way, so we will have to attract large sponsors by cleaning up the act a bit and being a little more of what the sponsors would want. Which is family-friendly. We're not F1, we don't have as many actively-watching fans (that sponsors are clamoring to be get in front of) so we can't act like it if we hope to rely - like F1 does - on outside money.
Sleeper shreddit's up.
She had already gone down before that happened. In my opinion, she would have had an argument for a rerun if she hadn't been down already.
Still these are wild images! I think she could have made an argument for rerun anyway with this one. If I was her team I'd have sure tried!
Except she’s still in the hunt for points if she finishes ninth or 11th vs 14th. I do agree it would be a tough situation if she was granted a rerun and went on to podium or win.
It’s a really tough decision. Personally I’d rather see her rerun in this scenario. But I’ll happily admit realistically either way isn’t going to be “fair” given the circumstances. At the end of the day the organizers didn’t keep the track clear. The racer on track was effected. She should have been granted a rerun regardless of what happened before or after. You’d want the same thing if tahnee was on her way down with green splits.
blablabla bad words blabla bad words
yet you have your oh so family friendly hockey with bloody fights, ads for guns on tv, can’decide as a nation how to deal with gun violence caused by gun add but omg plz don‘t say certain words on tv. get a grip
Did you read what I said? If you did, you'd have understood that I don't care about "bad words." I even said that I swear more than is socially optimal and use it as part of qualifying the clients I work with.
I don't care about that stuff so your tantrum is already incorrect from the get-go.
If you'd like to follow along with my thought process, though:
Most advertisers DO care about that stuff. Most brands feel - correctly or incorrectly - that the behaviors/actions of the people they employ as public brand ambassadors will be perceived by the public as representing the brand through association. And that idea plays out in daily, human interactions.
Human behaviorists would tell you that to an unbiased observer, Person A displaying a trait and then saying Person B is their close acquaintance, the unbiased observer associates that trait with both Person A and Person B.
If you want brands capable of injecting money into DH to associate with DH, DH will need to cater its behavior and appearance to be something brands feel represents them. It's just like any other job, man. If a mechanic shows up in a suit and tie, people are going to be suspicious. If a lawyer shows up covered in grease, they're not going to be taken seriously. If you show up for work in a courtroom in a suit and tie you're more likely to be taken seriously. If you show up for work as a mechanic at an automotive repair garage in clothes with grease stains, you're more likely to be taken seriously.
So the sport of professional DH racing has to decide if we cater to advertisers, which ones we cater to (because Johnson & Johnson requires a different presentation than Monster Energy Drink does), or if we cater to the sport. If the goal is to make the sport commercially viable long term and introduce money from outside the sport then we might have to cater to how those companies outside the sport want to be represented.
It's the sort of thing that would be taught in remedial marketing if such collegiate class existed.
Also, do you know how I voted? Do you know how I live my life? Do you know the small choices I make in human interactions daily to foster community or create division? Do you know how much hockey I do or don't watch/participate in? Do you know how many guns I own? I can tell you if you'd like but something tells me you're not curious enough of a human to grasp whatever new information my answers might give you.
Think she should have got a rerun. Sure she decked it beforehand, but what if she loses the overall by a point or two this year? Or the team overall etc. I feel like its a no exceptions thing.
i posted this in the race talk thread about the pedestrian
what happens during cautions and red flags in other racing sports? competitive advantages are often lost by those out front. there was significant interference on the track. she deserves a re-run if she protested (which it sounds like she did).
before the "pedestrian" she could have the run of her life at the bottom and earned another spot or two at the bottom earning 5 or 10 additional points. they all add up.
if this was an olympic run, would there be a re-run? 100%. UCI claims to be olympic-level racing.
I thought I was in this thread, not the other one. I guess it's relevant to both and I'd love to see what others think so I'll post it here as well. Sorry for the copy/paste.
Maybe the UCI needs to adopt a "if re-run is necessary, the splits completed in the scheduled run before the position of the significant impedence necessitating the rerun will be used." Tough sentence to parse.
Meaning the splits before the running baffoon incident from her first ride would be used and then the splits including the impeded split will be taken from the second ride. That would at least not give the rider the significant advantage of a do-over after having had a crash.
That way they can't gain as much of an unfair advantage from having ridden the course an extra time over the changing conditions.
Further questions: When is the rerun taken? Do we want the the 14th place (or 29th place) qualifier taking a run after the 1st place qualifier? Or should it have to be at the earliest possible time and all the other start times are bumped 5 minutes? Maybe a specific usher takes the rider directly to the lift and directly to the start gate so there's no possibility of bike tweaks ? No communication between rider and pit so they can't suggest bike tweaks or line changes. No kit/glove/goggle changes? 10 minute warmup with no mechanic or crew?
In this scenario wouldn’t a rider on a re-run just be chilling up to the point of the red flag incident then have a quick breather and pin the bottom splits with fresh arms?
And the Academy Award for best film making in MTB goes too…
The Sleeper Collective!!!!
why don’t we know who this dipshit is yet?
announce lifetime ban ASAP, make an example of him.
…oh wait I forgot Warner Bros don’t think the riders are the show…
You bring up a good point. I hadn't considered people could sandbag it. This is why I pull others in when I'm brainstorming anything (whether it's "not-my-job-to-solve-this-problem-thought-exercises" like this or otherwise)!
Maybe a better variation would be "of the splits completed before the impediment occurring in the scheduled finals run, the times that will be assigned to those splits will be the slower times for the corresponding splits from the run or rerun" forcing the rider to ride it hard but not be able to gain an advantage from the extra look at the track.
Damn...this is getting super contrived and overwrought. Maybe we just need prevent all reruns. That should be easy to do, right? Just ask those volunteer marshals to prevent all human stupidity and all acts of gods.
Good, that's solved.
What's the next problem we're addressing: climate issues or immoral means to profiteering ends?
Personally I think the split positions before and after the incident should be used to determine if a rerun is given. If the rider loses positions because of an incident then give a rerun. If they don't, like the case with Hattie, then no re-run should happen.
It's not perfect and still open to exploitation if riders stop more than is neccesary for an incident but it's pretty clear and easy to apply. It won't overcome the possibility of a rider having an incedible run lower down the course but re-runs will never be completely fair for everyone and a compromise that is consistantly applied is the best option.
In ski racing we were always told to get up and finish your run if you fell or missed a gate because of this exact situation. You may get lucky and have something happen further down the course that results in a rerun. IMO Hattie 100% deserved a rerun regardless of how her run was going up until that point
Creed
stoked for this one! lawlor followed jackson, troy and reece for the weekend and here's the tale!
Using creed in your video is an automatic disqualification 😂
Excellent format. Good work Lawlor
I would like to agree.. but sometimes the black & white application would be also fair.. is used like this, all the time.. the interpretations give room for biased solutions...I loved the "soccer move" to roll over the guy and crash that Neko mentioned on this case haha.. brilliant.. may be a re-run would have been conceded..
Post a reply to: 2025 World Cup Downhill / EDR - Bielsko-Biala, Poland