Racing Pigeon Post
The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programmes and scripts) of this website is copyright of Racing Pigeon Post. All rights expressly reserved.
Articles.
“All we want are the facts!”- Dragnet
Chapter 2.
Chapter 2.
I suppose my demise really began with the 2007/2008 AGM, although I had of course said something uninteresting before that. Those who follow the IPRR Forum discussion may well recall, at about this time, a lot of talk about introducing a Northern Section and a quite firm suggestion from Nigel Rigiani. Apparently this had also been discussed within the Committee together with talk of changing the BICC HQ and the question of Marking Station supervisors being part of the Committee. Nigel Rigiani submitted the proposal, or at least he thought he did, but when the proposals were sent out to members for the vote there was no mention of it at all, or for that matter of the HQ change. Dismay was expressed on the IPRR Forum. So I sent an E-mail enquiry to the Secretary, beginning the following exchange:-
(E-mail)
Sent:30 November 2007 17:02
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Propositions
Dear Jan,
I see from the propositions that I have just received that the Club has abandoned the ideas of introducing a Northern Section, which seems a dreadful shame, and changing the Clubs registered address. I must admit that the later seemed to me a little unworthy and so I am not surprised to see the idea perish but is there any real reason for abandoning the Northern Section idea?
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
01 December 2007 13:3
Hi Nigel,
No we haven’t abandoned the Northern Section. We did not receive any propositions by the dead line and after speaking with Brian he said that the decision and boundaries were made and agreed on by the Committee at the last meeting.
Prop B. Long Sec. M. Bunney
The future boundaries of the Sections would be -
East Section members flying east of 00.50 West and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
Centre Section members flying between 02.00 West and 00.50 West and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
West Section members flying west of 02.00 and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
North Section members flying over 620 miles from the Pau International race point.
6 for 1 against 5 abstentions.
The decision to move the Club H/Q was made because we do not want anymore dealings with the Southern Region. Meetings will still be held at the Lion Brewery, Ash
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 01 December 2007 17:10
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your reply but surely you realise the Club simply cannot do this. These matters are Rules and only "the membership" can change them in accordance with the procedure set out below. In this instance the location of Headquarters is one of those things that is required to be in the Rules and Sections were introduced as a Rule at the 2003 AGM as a result of a proposition made by the Committee.
It is not to late even now I would suggest. Clearly from the minutes of the 16th September Committee meeting the Committee voted these matters in to be put forward as proposals for the AGM so it is merely a matter of getting them out as, now, a supplementary voting slip. If you need any help in this I will be only too pleased to help as I realise it is a bit of a rush, but it must be done.
149. The rules of an Organisation must state
the name of the Organisation, the location of
its headquarters and the boundaries within
which the lofts of all affiliated club members
must be situated in order to qualify for
membership of the Organisation.
Alteration of Rules
155. (a) Any member of an organisation
wishing to alter or add to the rules of the
organisation may propose such alteration or
addition to the rules of the organisation by
giving not less than 28 days notice in writing
to the secretary of the organisation prior to the
organisation's annual general meeting. Such
notice shall specify the alteration or addition
which the member wishes to propose. The
secretary of the organisation must notify each
member of the organisation of the proposal to
alter or add to the rules not less than 7 days
before the date of the meeting.
(b) Should an organisation by virtue of Rule
182, undertake a postal vote of its members
then the number of days notice may be
extended from 28 to 42 days. Organisations
shall declare the final date for receipt of
proposals.
156. No alteration or addition to the rules of
the Organisation which would conflict with
any of the Rules of the Association shall be
permitted to be proposed. Any resolution or
decision of any meeting of an Organisation
other than the annual general meeting which
would have the effect of making additions or
alterations to the rules of the Organisation
shall be invalid.
157. No alteration to the wording of any
proposal to alter or add to the rules of the
Organisation shall be permitted to be made at
or prior to the annual general meeting at
which the alteration or addition is to be
proposed except for the correction of
punctuation or grammatical errors.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
03 December 2007 09:17
Nigel, I have faxed all the relevant information and await his reply.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 03 December 2007 12:34
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you.
As far as I see it there are 3 options
1. To abandon all changes and leave as is. This would be unfortunate.
2. If you want to change the Rules, send out a supplementary Voting slip based on the Committees proposals and I suppose because of time the AGM will have to be put back etc.
3. Leave the Rules as they are but have the Committee state that it will introduce a Northern Section, as an experiment, for the 2008 season to see if it works with a view to making new rules next year in light of that experience.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
03 December 2007 15:16
Nigel,
We have spoken to Brian and the outcome is that the Sections were bought in by the Committee initially and Brian maintains that sectioning remains Committee business.
My own personal views are :-
Point 1, I think that there would be an awful lot of disappointed members if we abandoned the North Section
Point 2, The cost and the work involved would be £250 for postage alone let alone the printing etc and time to get almost 1000 letters out again (it took 4 days for the first one)
Point 3 is about the most sensible.
Members want a North section, we spent many hours working out the boundaries to make decent sections and if you think about it, if we did delay the A.G.M. to send out more voting papers most people would vote for it anyway as it would be recommended by the Committee. A lot of time and effort for the same result. Surely Nigel, sometimes a little commonsense is needed.
There were no propositions put in by anyone, this is good for the Club, members must be happy with the way things are run. The A.G.M. date in the Rule Book was 16th December and the voting forms were sent out after that deadline along with the notice that we had to change the date of the A.G.M.
Jan & Albi
(E-mail)
Sent: 03 December 2007 17:00
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your reply.
With the greatest respect to Brian, which I mean sincerely, he is wrong. As I stated in my earlier E-mail, Sections were introduced by a proposal made by the Committee at the 2003 AGM. I have the proposal paper here before me as I write. Sections are now a Rule and can only be changed by "the membership" in the manner previously described. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.
You say "Surely Nigel, sometimes a little commonsense is needed." That is what I provided you with in Option 3 of my previous E-mail. Changing the Rules against the Rules does not make common sense at anytime.
I think people are generally pleased with the way the Club is run. I am. But that will only last as long as it is run properly.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
04 December 2007 09:14
Sorry Nigel, Brian says that the Committee brought it in and only the Committee can change it. Any further remarks on this can you please take it up with Brian,
our President.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 04 December 2007 09:49
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
I don't think there is any value in my contacting Brian direct. I have the feeling that anything that I suggest he would oppose. It is perhaps unfortunate that it is me in discussions with you. However, if he wishes to speak with me I am more than prepared to speak with him at anytime.
I have only tried to point out to you what is right and what is wrong. What happens beyond that is a matter for those who take the action. I can then only respond to that action. What I have pointed out is that to change the Rules in the circumstances described will contravene the Rules. Can I suggest that you put the facts to someone who is conversant with RPRA Rules and procedures before taking any precipitous action.
To change the Rules, in the way that has been suggested, is to deny the Membership their authority and their vote. It is wrong in principle and wrong in fact. It is therefore something which I will oppose in every legitimate way at my disposal.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
04 December 2007 15:35
Nigel, I know that you mean well but I have been running clubs, feds, combines and now the BICC for the last 40 years and I think that I have done a very successful job judging by the response that I have got. I do know what the R.P.R.A. Rules are all about but sometimes you have to get round things in the best way you can. This matter will be resolved without any R.P.R.A. Rules being broken.
Jan
What would we find when the Rule Book was published?
Racing Rules
13. There will be a North Section introduced this year on a trial basis commencing at 620 miles and over from Pau International race point (code 5035).
Comment.
Resolved without any RPRA Rules being broken?
What I learned from this was that you cannot trust the B.I.C.C. to do what they say they will do let alone what is right and proper and fair.
While the Northern Section was not amongst propositions put out for the vote there was one dealing with the newly introduced ETS. (As a small matter of interest, earlier in the year, I had delivered to the Chairman an offer from Unikon to equip ALL BICC Marking Stations with not just the necessary ETS Marking Equipment but Laser Printers as well. The cost of the printers alone at that time would have amounted to some £1,200-£1,700.) This proposition just happened to be made by A & T Deacon and read as follows.
Prop. A & T Deacon
New Race Rule
All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
It found favour amongst the membership and so found its way into the Rule book as follows.
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification. This is to comply with International Rules.
Whilst of course the Rule was voted through in a perfectly correct manner and so was legitimately a B.I.C.C. Rule the sentence “This is to comply with International Rules.” had not been included in the proposition and was not therefore part of the rule. Not only that this sentence told a lie as the restrictions imposed by this rule were not “required” by International Rules, a rough translation of which is as follows:-
In the absence of a control device, all the control rubbers to be handed in together with the main unit. Except the first clocked pigeon whose control rubber within 5 minutes in the main unit is clocked. By electronic registration is single clocking of one rubber of the first clocked pigeon oblige to control (the remaining rings must in the association be brought in).
I informed the Chairman of this at the time and have done again several times since, and his explanation then and ever since was “that’s what they told us when we were over there.” It is not clear who “they” were or what language they spoke but there is no reason for anyone “over there” to give this explanation because it simply is not true.
When the B.I.C.C. Rule book was published there was no detail of what equipment was available at the relevant Marking Stations and so I E-mailed the Secretary to clarify the situation for myself and members of RML. The exchange was as follows:-
(E-mail)
Sent: 14 March 2008 17:26
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: ETS
Dear Jan,
I see that it is the competitors duty to determine the ETS capability of marking stations they intend to use. Consequently, on behalf of RML International members including myself, can you please give me the details of ETS marking capability at Basildon, Manchester, Northampton and Higham for National and International racing.
As I have heard nothing further from you about the offer from UNIKON to equip BICC marking stations, which I passed to you on 18th April 2007, I assume you have taken this up directly with UNIKON, in which case there should be no strict problem but I wonder if they have supplied the new Champ or older Profi units.
Thanks and best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
14 March 2008 18:58
As you know, we cannot dictate to our marking stations whether they are prepared to operate the E.T.S. system. It is up the marking station I.C’s. as to whether they are willing to operate it. I am in the process of finding out which ones are prepared to use E.T.S. The system they are prepared to use is entirely their choice as we are not in the business of promoting one or the other.
At the moment I can tell you that Basildon have said yes, Northampton have said yes, Higham, at the moment, are saying no unless someone is prepared to come along and operate it, Manchester have said yes, Stowmarket have said yes and Salisbury have said yes. It will be in the rule book along by the marking stations which ones will be operating it. As for the International you can use E.T.S but they still have to rubber the pigeons and clock them within 5 mins. as per International ruling.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 14 March 2008 21:56
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: ETS
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your rapid response, unfortunately it seems to raise more questions than it answers.
I have merely enquired, as I am obliged to do, and have made no reference to dictation which I am happy to leave to others. I neither do it nor take it.
You say you are in the process of finding out which ones are prepared to use ETS, can this really be true? Are you seriously saying that the Club, the Committee, have made no plan, discussed no plan and determined no plan for the utilisation of ETS?
You make several references to "we", who precisely do you mean by we?
You say that various Marking Stations have said yes but what exactly is their capability, what equipment do they have and what equipment can they deal with? It is no good at all just saying Yes or No if they don't have the right gear.
You make no mention of the Unikon offer, which was now made almost a full year ago, so I am bound to ask when was this put before the committee and what precisely was their response?
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
15 March 2008 12:22
Dear Nigel,
The “we” being the B.I.C.C have made no decisions as of yet as there were no R.P.R.A. rules in operation with regarding the use of the E.T.S. system.
The B.I.C.C. have had offers from all the major E.T.S. systems but we must again stress that we can not tell the I.C.’s of the marking stations what system to use even if they are prepared to operate it at all. As you must realise they are all unpaid volunteers because they are happy to do the job others don’t want. We have asked them if they are prepared to operate the system and if it will be too much for them to do both then are they happy to work alongside someone who would be prepared to operate it as well. Hence the answer yes or no. In the case of Higham, Mr Cowper does not think that he can cope with both and at the moment no one has come forward to help him out. The marking stations that we have told you are using the system do not seem to have had any problems, as you know all systems are meant to be compatible with one another.
All aspects of the E.T.S. system were discussed at the last Committee meeting and it was agreed to leave any decisions until the R.P.R.A. had made their ruling on it.
On a personal note Albi and myself feel that the system will evolve itself in the course of time.
Jan
Nothing further was forthcoming and we scrambled through a first year of ETS with a Rule that put B.I.C.C. competitors at a serious disadvantage, against all other competitors, and a Rule book that contained both a lie and a Rule that was not a Rule. Because of this I wrote a letter to the B.I.C.C. Committee suggesting that they should make the Membership aware of this, when proposals were sent out for the upcoming AGM, text as below.
(Letter)
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Dear Committee Members,
In order to prevent controversy and confusion over proposals for this years AGM could I ask that the following notes be included with any request or reminder distributed or published concerning such proposals.
1. Racing Rule 13, as published in the 2008 Year Book, is not a Rule in that it was not proposed or voted upon in this form. The entry is merely a guidance note which unfortunately was misprinted as a Rule.
2. The final sentence of Racing Rule 12, as published in the 2008 Year Book, is also not a Rule in that it was not proposed or voted upon in this form. Again it is merely a guidance note which was misprinted as a Rule. Unfortunately it is also factually incorrect in that what it relates to, as far as ETS systems are concerned, is not a requirement of International Rules.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Lane
It was at the B.I.C.C. Committee meeting on 26th October 2008 when this letter was read out. I know it was read out because I was there. (Forgive me if I sound a little sceptical about what information actually reaches the Committee but I will return to this later.) However this letter was read out so they did hear what I had to say. The Chairman came out with his now stock reply “that’s what they told us when we were over there.” I sought to explain that this Rule on ETS was not as required by International Rules and put B.I.C.C. members at a distinct disadvantage. Mr Bunny asked “How on earth does it put us at a disadvantage?” I started to explain, as I shall explain to you here, but I was drowned out by core members of the Committee one shouting quite loudly “We did this for you so you don’t get it wrong.”
Comment.
To be quite honest I don’t think this member really had the slightest notion of what I was talking about but worse, in common with his colleagues, he had no intention of discovering either.
How does this Rule put B.I.C.C. Members at a disadvantage?
Throughout Europe the first pigeon to arrive at a loft using ETS would require ONE rubber to be timed into a conventional clock within 5 minutes of the ETS time. If the rubber was timed outside of 5 minutes then the velocity would be calculated from the conventional rubber time and not the ETS time, thus the penalty is the time difference between the two. All subsequent pigeons are timed by ETS alone, without the need for ANY rubbers being timed at all.
Within the B.I.C.C. however the first pigeon to arrive at a loft using ETS would require both rubbers to be timed within 5 minutes or be DISQUALIFIED. Not only that but all subsequent pigeons would have to be timed in exactly that same way, both rubbers being timed within 5 minutes or disqualified.
So what did the Committee do about this? Nothing, well to be fair not quite, they actually changed the font of the lying sentence and put it in brackets.
Like this in 2008:-
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification. This is to comply with International Rules.
To this in 2009:-
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. (This is to comply with International Rules.) Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
Comment.
What I must ask is how can any President, Chairman, Committee Member, Secretary or even plain Club Member, on hearing that something about their rules is wrong and puts their members at a disadvantage, do nothing? Surely they must feel obliged to make some enquiry? Surely they must ask around if only to verify that they are right? Surely they must realise they have a duty to the Club and the members? How can they do nothing and consider themselves responsible?
I will give you a direct comparison. The Narbonne Open Race of 2009 initially published a similar rule. When I saw it I contacted them to tell them I believed it was wrong. They came back to me and asked if I had a reference. So I sent them the translation I had made of the relevant Rules and a link to those Rules, which are published on the Internet for all to see and from where I had obtained them a year or so before. Within a couple of days the Narbonne Open Rules were changed, a couple days that’s all it took and yet with the B.I.C.C. it is two years, and now without any suitable proposals for 2009/2010 it looks like becoming three years, and nothing has changed at all.
This has of course brought us to the 26th October 2008 Committee Meeting, which takes us on to Chapter 3.
Nigel Lane
(E-mail)
Sent:30 November 2007 17:02
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Propositions
Dear Jan,
I see from the propositions that I have just received that the Club has abandoned the ideas of introducing a Northern Section, which seems a dreadful shame, and changing the Clubs registered address. I must admit that the later seemed to me a little unworthy and so I am not surprised to see the idea perish but is there any real reason for abandoning the Northern Section idea?
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
01 December 2007 13:3
Hi Nigel,
No we haven’t abandoned the Northern Section. We did not receive any propositions by the dead line and after speaking with Brian he said that the decision and boundaries were made and agreed on by the Committee at the last meeting.
Prop B. Long Sec. M. Bunney
The future boundaries of the Sections would be -
East Section members flying east of 00.50 West and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
Centre Section members flying between 02.00 West and 00.50 West and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
West Section members flying west of 02.00 and less than 620.miles from the Pau International race point.
North Section members flying over 620 miles from the Pau International race point.
6 for 1 against 5 abstentions.
The decision to move the Club H/Q was made because we do not want anymore dealings with the Southern Region. Meetings will still be held at the Lion Brewery, Ash
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 01 December 2007 17:10
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your reply but surely you realise the Club simply cannot do this. These matters are Rules and only "the membership" can change them in accordance with the procedure set out below. In this instance the location of Headquarters is one of those things that is required to be in the Rules and Sections were introduced as a Rule at the 2003 AGM as a result of a proposition made by the Committee.
It is not to late even now I would suggest. Clearly from the minutes of the 16th September Committee meeting the Committee voted these matters in to be put forward as proposals for the AGM so it is merely a matter of getting them out as, now, a supplementary voting slip. If you need any help in this I will be only too pleased to help as I realise it is a bit of a rush, but it must be done.
149. The rules of an Organisation must state
the name of the Organisation, the location of
its headquarters and the boundaries within
which the lofts of all affiliated club members
must be situated in order to qualify for
membership of the Organisation.
Alteration of Rules
155. (a) Any member of an organisation
wishing to alter or add to the rules of the
organisation may propose such alteration or
addition to the rules of the organisation by
giving not less than 28 days notice in writing
to the secretary of the organisation prior to the
organisation's annual general meeting. Such
notice shall specify the alteration or addition
which the member wishes to propose. The
secretary of the organisation must notify each
member of the organisation of the proposal to
alter or add to the rules not less than 7 days
before the date of the meeting.
(b) Should an organisation by virtue of Rule
182, undertake a postal vote of its members
then the number of days notice may be
extended from 28 to 42 days. Organisations
shall declare the final date for receipt of
proposals.
156. No alteration or addition to the rules of
the Organisation which would conflict with
any of the Rules of the Association shall be
permitted to be proposed. Any resolution or
decision of any meeting of an Organisation
other than the annual general meeting which
would have the effect of making additions or
alterations to the rules of the Organisation
shall be invalid.
157. No alteration to the wording of any
proposal to alter or add to the rules of the
Organisation shall be permitted to be made at
or prior to the annual general meeting at
which the alteration or addition is to be
proposed except for the correction of
punctuation or grammatical errors.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
03 December 2007 09:17
Nigel, I have faxed all the relevant information and await his reply.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 03 December 2007 12:34
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you.
As far as I see it there are 3 options
1. To abandon all changes and leave as is. This would be unfortunate.
2. If you want to change the Rules, send out a supplementary Voting slip based on the Committees proposals and I suppose because of time the AGM will have to be put back etc.
3. Leave the Rules as they are but have the Committee state that it will introduce a Northern Section, as an experiment, for the 2008 season to see if it works with a view to making new rules next year in light of that experience.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
03 December 2007 15:16
Nigel,
We have spoken to Brian and the outcome is that the Sections were bought in by the Committee initially and Brian maintains that sectioning remains Committee business.
My own personal views are :-
Point 1, I think that there would be an awful lot of disappointed members if we abandoned the North Section
Point 2, The cost and the work involved would be £250 for postage alone let alone the printing etc and time to get almost 1000 letters out again (it took 4 days for the first one)
Point 3 is about the most sensible.
Members want a North section, we spent many hours working out the boundaries to make decent sections and if you think about it, if we did delay the A.G.M. to send out more voting papers most people would vote for it anyway as it would be recommended by the Committee. A lot of time and effort for the same result. Surely Nigel, sometimes a little commonsense is needed.
There were no propositions put in by anyone, this is good for the Club, members must be happy with the way things are run. The A.G.M. date in the Rule Book was 16th December and the voting forms were sent out after that deadline along with the notice that we had to change the date of the A.G.M.
Jan & Albi
(E-mail)
Sent: 03 December 2007 17:00
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your reply.
With the greatest respect to Brian, which I mean sincerely, he is wrong. As I stated in my earlier E-mail, Sections were introduced by a proposal made by the Committee at the 2003 AGM. I have the proposal paper here before me as I write. Sections are now a Rule and can only be changed by "the membership" in the manner previously described. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.
You say "Surely Nigel, sometimes a little commonsense is needed." That is what I provided you with in Option 3 of my previous E-mail. Changing the Rules against the Rules does not make common sense at anytime.
I think people are generally pleased with the way the Club is run. I am. But that will only last as long as it is run properly.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
04 December 2007 09:14
Sorry Nigel, Brian says that the Committee brought it in and only the Committee can change it. Any further remarks on this can you please take it up with Brian,
our President.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 04 December 2007 09:49
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: Propositions
Dear Jan,
I don't think there is any value in my contacting Brian direct. I have the feeling that anything that I suggest he would oppose. It is perhaps unfortunate that it is me in discussions with you. However, if he wishes to speak with me I am more than prepared to speak with him at anytime.
I have only tried to point out to you what is right and what is wrong. What happens beyond that is a matter for those who take the action. I can then only respond to that action. What I have pointed out is that to change the Rules in the circumstances described will contravene the Rules. Can I suggest that you put the facts to someone who is conversant with RPRA Rules and procedures before taking any precipitous action.
To change the Rules, in the way that has been suggested, is to deny the Membership their authority and their vote. It is wrong in principle and wrong in fact. It is therefore something which I will oppose in every legitimate way at my disposal.
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
04 December 2007 15:35
Nigel, I know that you mean well but I have been running clubs, feds, combines and now the BICC for the last 40 years and I think that I have done a very successful job judging by the response that I have got. I do know what the R.P.R.A. Rules are all about but sometimes you have to get round things in the best way you can. This matter will be resolved without any R.P.R.A. Rules being broken.
Jan
What would we find when the Rule Book was published?
Racing Rules
13. There will be a North Section introduced this year on a trial basis commencing at 620 miles and over from Pau International race point (code 5035).
Comment.
Resolved without any RPRA Rules being broken?
What I learned from this was that you cannot trust the B.I.C.C. to do what they say they will do let alone what is right and proper and fair.
While the Northern Section was not amongst propositions put out for the vote there was one dealing with the newly introduced ETS. (As a small matter of interest, earlier in the year, I had delivered to the Chairman an offer from Unikon to equip ALL BICC Marking Stations with not just the necessary ETS Marking Equipment but Laser Printers as well. The cost of the printers alone at that time would have amounted to some £1,200-£1,700.) This proposition just happened to be made by A & T Deacon and read as follows.
Prop. A & T Deacon
New Race Rule
All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
It found favour amongst the membership and so found its way into the Rule book as follows.
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification. This is to comply with International Rules.
Whilst of course the Rule was voted through in a perfectly correct manner and so was legitimately a B.I.C.C. Rule the sentence “This is to comply with International Rules.” had not been included in the proposition and was not therefore part of the rule. Not only that this sentence told a lie as the restrictions imposed by this rule were not “required” by International Rules, a rough translation of which is as follows:-
In the absence of a control device, all the control rubbers to be handed in together with the main unit. Except the first clocked pigeon whose control rubber within 5 minutes in the main unit is clocked. By electronic registration is single clocking of one rubber of the first clocked pigeon oblige to control (the remaining rings must in the association be brought in).
I informed the Chairman of this at the time and have done again several times since, and his explanation then and ever since was “that’s what they told us when we were over there.” It is not clear who “they” were or what language they spoke but there is no reason for anyone “over there” to give this explanation because it simply is not true.
When the B.I.C.C. Rule book was published there was no detail of what equipment was available at the relevant Marking Stations and so I E-mailed the Secretary to clarify the situation for myself and members of RML. The exchange was as follows:-
(E-mail)
Sent: 14 March 2008 17:26
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: ETS
Dear Jan,
I see that it is the competitors duty to determine the ETS capability of marking stations they intend to use. Consequently, on behalf of RML International members including myself, can you please give me the details of ETS marking capability at Basildon, Manchester, Northampton and Higham for National and International racing.
As I have heard nothing further from you about the offer from UNIKON to equip BICC marking stations, which I passed to you on 18th April 2007, I assume you have taken this up directly with UNIKON, in which case there should be no strict problem but I wonder if they have supplied the new Champ or older Profi units.
Thanks and best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
14 March 2008 18:58
As you know, we cannot dictate to our marking stations whether they are prepared to operate the E.T.S. system. It is up the marking station I.C’s. as to whether they are willing to operate it. I am in the process of finding out which ones are prepared to use E.T.S. The system they are prepared to use is entirely their choice as we are not in the business of promoting one or the other.
At the moment I can tell you that Basildon have said yes, Northampton have said yes, Higham, at the moment, are saying no unless someone is prepared to come along and operate it, Manchester have said yes, Stowmarket have said yes and Salisbury have said yes. It will be in the rule book along by the marking stations which ones will be operating it. As for the International you can use E.T.S but they still have to rubber the pigeons and clock them within 5 mins. as per International ruling.
Jan
(E-mail)
Sent: 14 March 2008 21:56
To: Jeanette Deacon
Subject: Re: ETS
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your rapid response, unfortunately it seems to raise more questions than it answers.
I have merely enquired, as I am obliged to do, and have made no reference to dictation which I am happy to leave to others. I neither do it nor take it.
You say you are in the process of finding out which ones are prepared to use ETS, can this really be true? Are you seriously saying that the Club, the Committee, have made no plan, discussed no plan and determined no plan for the utilisation of ETS?
You make several references to "we", who precisely do you mean by we?
You say that various Marking Stations have said yes but what exactly is their capability, what equipment do they have and what equipment can they deal with? It is no good at all just saying Yes or No if they don't have the right gear.
You make no mention of the Unikon offer, which was now made almost a full year ago, so I am bound to ask when was this put before the committee and what precisely was their response?
Best wishes
Nigel
(E-mail)
15 March 2008 12:22
Dear Nigel,
The “we” being the B.I.C.C have made no decisions as of yet as there were no R.P.R.A. rules in operation with regarding the use of the E.T.S. system.
The B.I.C.C. have had offers from all the major E.T.S. systems but we must again stress that we can not tell the I.C.’s of the marking stations what system to use even if they are prepared to operate it at all. As you must realise they are all unpaid volunteers because they are happy to do the job others don’t want. We have asked them if they are prepared to operate the system and if it will be too much for them to do both then are they happy to work alongside someone who would be prepared to operate it as well. Hence the answer yes or no. In the case of Higham, Mr Cowper does not think that he can cope with both and at the moment no one has come forward to help him out. The marking stations that we have told you are using the system do not seem to have had any problems, as you know all systems are meant to be compatible with one another.
All aspects of the E.T.S. system were discussed at the last Committee meeting and it was agreed to leave any decisions until the R.P.R.A. had made their ruling on it.
On a personal note Albi and myself feel that the system will evolve itself in the course of time.
Jan
Nothing further was forthcoming and we scrambled through a first year of ETS with a Rule that put B.I.C.C. competitors at a serious disadvantage, against all other competitors, and a Rule book that contained both a lie and a Rule that was not a Rule. Because of this I wrote a letter to the B.I.C.C. Committee suggesting that they should make the Membership aware of this, when proposals were sent out for the upcoming AGM, text as below.
(Letter)
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Dear Committee Members,
In order to prevent controversy and confusion over proposals for this years AGM could I ask that the following notes be included with any request or reminder distributed or published concerning such proposals.
1. Racing Rule 13, as published in the 2008 Year Book, is not a Rule in that it was not proposed or voted upon in this form. The entry is merely a guidance note which unfortunately was misprinted as a Rule.
2. The final sentence of Racing Rule 12, as published in the 2008 Year Book, is also not a Rule in that it was not proposed or voted upon in this form. Again it is merely a guidance note which was misprinted as a Rule. Unfortunately it is also factually incorrect in that what it relates to, as far as ETS systems are concerned, is not a requirement of International Rules.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Lane
It was at the B.I.C.C. Committee meeting on 26th October 2008 when this letter was read out. I know it was read out because I was there. (Forgive me if I sound a little sceptical about what information actually reaches the Committee but I will return to this later.) However this letter was read out so they did hear what I had to say. The Chairman came out with his now stock reply “that’s what they told us when we were over there.” I sought to explain that this Rule on ETS was not as required by International Rules and put B.I.C.C. members at a distinct disadvantage. Mr Bunny asked “How on earth does it put us at a disadvantage?” I started to explain, as I shall explain to you here, but I was drowned out by core members of the Committee one shouting quite loudly “We did this for you so you don’t get it wrong.”
Comment.
To be quite honest I don’t think this member really had the slightest notion of what I was talking about but worse, in common with his colleagues, he had no intention of discovering either.
How does this Rule put B.I.C.C. Members at a disadvantage?
Throughout Europe the first pigeon to arrive at a loft using ETS would require ONE rubber to be timed into a conventional clock within 5 minutes of the ETS time. If the rubber was timed outside of 5 minutes then the velocity would be calculated from the conventional rubber time and not the ETS time, thus the penalty is the time difference between the two. All subsequent pigeons are timed by ETS alone, without the need for ANY rubbers being timed at all.
Within the B.I.C.C. however the first pigeon to arrive at a loft using ETS would require both rubbers to be timed within 5 minutes or be DISQUALIFIED. Not only that but all subsequent pigeons would have to be timed in exactly that same way, both rubbers being timed within 5 minutes or disqualified.
So what did the Committee do about this? Nothing, well to be fair not quite, they actually changed the font of the lying sentence and put it in brackets.
Like this in 2008:-
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. Failure to comply will result in disqualification. This is to comply with International Rules.
To this in 2009:-
12. All International entries will be race rubbered on both legs. Both rubbers must be clocked on arrival. Members using the E.T.S. system must also clock both rubbers within 5 minutes of the timing of each arrival. (This is to comply with International Rules.) Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
Comment.
What I must ask is how can any President, Chairman, Committee Member, Secretary or even plain Club Member, on hearing that something about their rules is wrong and puts their members at a disadvantage, do nothing? Surely they must feel obliged to make some enquiry? Surely they must ask around if only to verify that they are right? Surely they must realise they have a duty to the Club and the members? How can they do nothing and consider themselves responsible?
I will give you a direct comparison. The Narbonne Open Race of 2009 initially published a similar rule. When I saw it I contacted them to tell them I believed it was wrong. They came back to me and asked if I had a reference. So I sent them the translation I had made of the relevant Rules and a link to those Rules, which are published on the Internet for all to see and from where I had obtained them a year or so before. Within a couple of days the Narbonne Open Rules were changed, a couple days that’s all it took and yet with the B.I.C.C. it is two years, and now without any suitable proposals for 2009/2010 it looks like becoming three years, and nothing has changed at all.
This has of course brought us to the 26th October 2008 Committee Meeting, which takes us on to Chapter 3.
Nigel Lane
