Some things to bear in mind as we bar these kids from racing their bikes:
The UCI has clearly stated Canada can have its own local rule on this. USA Cycling proactively investigated this early this year with the UCI and received their approval, before the Roubaix incident which I believe has prompted this in Canada. Looking out for their members while UCI and CPA (pro riders association) fight it out. CCC chose not do this, nor have they responded when presented with UCI's ruling.
We are told officials and organizers face liability risk and loss of insurance; yet gran fondos with much larger, even more mixed packs, are allowed discs, and continue to enjoy CCC insurance. I'd like to see the evidence insurers care. "Insurance" is often used to justify a rule. Proof is not often offered, and not so far in this case. Perhaps the threat of lawsuits from wealthy older fondo riders, and organizers, deterred them? ( I see Craig's inquiry as I typed this, shows there is not a insurance issue. Hmmm.)
BC has allowed disk brakes on road allowed for 3 years without incident. I checked with Talia and Thomas Hill and they rode the provincial road championships in 2013 in Comox with them, with permission. Discs have been permitted each year since, and permission to use them appears in numerous BC race technical regulations. With no safety concerns raised. That makes me wonder where the commissaires were for the last three years. And wonder why they care now?
The main reason for this ruling, according to Claire Bonin, Cycling BC Chief Commissaire, is the CCC constitution (Though this didn't seem to be a problem for the last three years.)
"Cycling Canada Bylaws, Article 7 d states: The by-laws and regulations of the Corporation shall not run counter to the constitution and regulations of the UCI. In case of divergence, only the constitution and regulations of the UCI shall apply. As an extension, this provision shall apply to the Members affiliated with the Corporation."
So, despite UCI writing that:
"If discs have been used by other age groups or cats in other countries that is the responsibility and under the jurisdiction of the NF
and not under the UCI rules. The NF is making an exception.
Therefore the decision by Canada to stop allowing the use is not because they have received instruction to do that from UCI,
they still have the ability to apply a local rule."
(Mark Barfield, UCI Technical Manager, personal correspondence May 11, 2016)
So this means that CCC is choosing to ignore a UCI ruling, one with a significant precedent in the US. This is hard to understand considering the CCC constitution says that they must abide by UCI regulations.
And there is plenty of evidence we should closely guard the right to make our own rules. UCI rules have historically had such ill- advised (now changed) rules that allowed leather helmets, no helmets, non-standard impact helmets (ie aero only), required notice for doping control, and an hour to report to give a sample, when the rest of the sport world had no-notice testing and chaperones to prevent tampering, banned discs in cyclocross, had no u23 women's titles at road or cross worlds
(still no junior women's title). When we asked for youth categories at cross nationals, we were told no because the UCI didn't allow them. I even had a CCC staffer tell me that the reason the Canadian u19 road championship is in the middle of BC high school exams is because the UCI said they had to. (Like this case, it turns out CCC just decided to put it with the elite championship. Which are supposed to be the last week of June in UCI rules. Unless you're in the US, Australia, etc.
)
Anyone want to join an appeal to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada?
http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/home
)