That’s what I was guessing, but the phrasing is rather nebulous. “Equal weight” can be interpreted many different ways. It would be less ambiguous if it was worded along the lines of “skills typically known from freestyle should not be discriminated against.” Anyway, I fail to see the purpose of the sentence.
This is why I’m questioning that line. It doesn’t seem particularly necessary, plenty of riders use coasting tricks and I’ve never seen a case where someone felt they were judged unfairly. Actually, in this battle Josef beat Adrien doing tons of coasting variations, and there was quiet the debate about who should have won. Maybe we should add a sentence that says tricks typically known from street shouldn’t be discriminated against. However, that sentence will be just as unnecessary as the other one. We could put a sentence in there to ensure that skills typically known from each of the disciplines aren’t discriminated against, but at the end of the day it would be a lot easier to just say that “A Flatland skill is any unicycle skill performed on a flat surface” and let the judges judge.
Yep, I think so too! It seems like girls flatland is at sort of a critical juncture here, and I just want to keep it along the lines of “traditional” flatland while it evolves.
I actually found it quite heartwarming that he likes my riding and videos, just strongly dislikes all of my opinions and suggestions.
Yeah, I realize that the judging problem doesn’t need any rules to fix it, more riders should just sign up to judge. Just to clarify I’ve never had any problems with judges decisions, but I’ve seen other riders get quite ugly over that stuff.
Wow, I didn’t even consider that problem about the trainers. To be honest, I didn’t even know freestyle riders had trainers. That’s relieving, it seems likely then that the freestyle riders were only registering at EUC because there was no freestyle competition, and it might not be a problem at all in other conventions.
The rest of what you said is exactly my opinion. Freestyle and flatland definitely have a lot in common, and almost unlimited potential. I definitely am trying to encourage more freestyle riders to overlap their style with flatland, and they would definitely be welcomed into the competition. In these types of situations though I do think that they should make an effort to do the majority of their run with “flatland style.” There’s definitely a lot of potential in blending the styles more.
Exactly!
Define audience. If you mean the general public, then no flatland is not a unicycle show for the audience.
So you were not allowed to participate in the last round of the committee (2010)? That would explain me not remembering anything from you.
I remember reading that, but couldn’t find it to re-read.
The circumstances of your removal from the committee don’t make any sense to me. Like being a good judge; some of our best judges (Freestyle) are lousy unicycle riders. To think you must attend recent Unicons to have an opinion on competition rules is silly, especially when other, active judges are being removed because there are too many from the country where they live. I’m pretty sure there were no other Dutch committee members.
If I choose to stay on as the committee chairman, you will be welcome back when we re-start the committee, probably at or around the time of Unicon XVI.
In regards to telling the IUF board that the IUF hadn’t done anything in 20 years, I remember that very clearly. I understood your point BTW, but it was not well taken by the 20-year people. Do I really have to explain this? This occurred at the IUF Meeting at Unicon XIII. If you want to affect change or make improvements, get more involved. Be part of the solution. As you well know, there’s plenty that needs to be done!
This historical stuff sounds fascinating, and perhaps should be the topic of a new thread. Briefly, it sounds like you are describing a conversation about whether a guy from Suriname or the Netherlands should be able to win the USA National Unicycle Championships. At the time, that decision would belong to the hosting organization, the Unicycling Society of America. They basically “own” that event, and get to decide how they work it.
At that time, there was no IUF, and most countries didn’t have large unicycle competitions. In fact, hardly any countries had any unicycle competitions. And #1 was really good, so some people probably questioned whether he should be able to win when he doesn’t live in the country that the competitions were supposed to be for.
Today, this decision is more complicated due to insurance. The USA’s insurance only works for US and Canadian riders (and many some other places but not all of North America). So the USA has to set limitations based on that, but at least it’s with less guilt over it.
Part of the reason for restricting national competition is to encourage other countries to set up their own competition events and build the sport around the world. Or for other reasons, such as when we had the 2002 NAUCC immediately before Unicon 11 in Washington. There was a fear that hundreds of foreign riders would use the NAUCC as a “practice meet”, but that’s not what it’s supposed to be. So a limit was set for that event.
Bill Jenack was fed up with unicycle politics long before I joined the sport. He was not a decision maker for the USA Inc. after 1976 or so. But people definitely listened to him and hopefully took his advice. Unfortunately I never met him.
Or maybe I’m thinking of the wrong 2 friends, because they were married several years after the IUF was formed. No, you probably mean they are married now. Yes, they were there. To my knowledge, your Friend #1 had about the same involvement in the early IUF as Ken Fuchs and myself. Jack Halpern was promoting the idea (and the IUF name). He collected a number of “representatives” from various countries who all said “Yes, we’re with you!” and it went from there.
That’s good to know, as much of those old records are probably lost. Jack Halpern and your Friend #1 both attended their first American unicycle meet in 1979. While Friend #1 may have had the idea for an international unicycling organization, I’m not aware of any major efforts by him to make it a reality. Jack Halpern was the one who gathered people together to get things moving.
I can’t blame them! I sometimes question why I’ve remained in it for so much longer than they did.
I don’t know if any egos were crushed, but it definitely annoyed some people. My irony from the previous post may not come through to you; your English is so good I forget that such expressions may not be known to you. Basically, pissing people off may get them to think, but is usually a lousy way to get them to do things differently.
Yes, when there, everything worked as it had been designed to. When I took over the hosting, I didn’t have the technical support to do anything beyond making it function.
I was not aware of how this had been accomplished. Good job! I’d love to learn more about that story.
I recommend you offer this to the IUF board if you haven’t already.
Currently it’s hosted on the uniusa.org account, but Aaron and Scott have expressed that they would rather have the IUF on the IUF site. If you have any trouble getting those files from them, I might still have a copy of them here.
The way I read that section, all you would have to do is ask. 4.5.1 allows for “other media types” at the host’s discretion. Since music is not judged, I don’t see a reason why they wouldn’t allow it.
He is referring to having both riders on a single unicycle. And this is a tough one, because it can be very good unicycling/performing/art. The problem is that, depending on how it’s being done, there is only one unicyclist at the time. While there are ways for two riders to control a single unicycle together, most forms of 2-on-1 involve one person riding while the other is doing poses or balancing above. Because of the nature of Freestyle judging criteria (even the old, simpler kind), being off the unicycle runs risk of damaging your difficulty score. I can’t think of a better way to judge that type of pairs act. If I wanted to show one in competition, I would just do it and see what the judges came up with. If Teresa and Sem had used their classic Pairs performance in a competition, I think they would have won it in most cases.
Well, so much for moving that history stuff to a separate thread (oops). If you want to go more into it, we really should. Unicycling needs to keep better track of its history.
It has to be the second one. Standard Skill was invented (or borrowed from Artistic Bicycling) so we would have a “trick riding” event with objective judging. The problem is, it’s super-boring! To me, Standard Skill is only interesting at the top levels, or if you’re watching your own kids or students.
Every other event, like Flat, Street and Freestyle, uses subjective judging. It’s impossible not to, because riders are free to do nearly anything. So opinion is an unavoidable factor. People who are inexperienced with the idea of organized competition can call for more unstructured events, but without at least some structure, nobody knows what makes a winning performance.
The best MUni racer is the one who finishes first. If the competition is something other than a pure race, it probably gets less objective as well.
Yes! We develop competition events to compare ourselves to each other, but that is only one way to have fun with unicycling. If people get too serious about that, they will forget all the great reasons they unicycle in the first place. We still need more “convention” and less competition at the big events. Most of my best experiences at big unicycle events are outside the competition events.
I really like olafs post and agree in nearly all parts with him.
Off course it looks a little bit strange when pure freestyle riders compete against flat riders but time will solve this problem.
I like unicycling because it is that diverse and i think we should keep that even some problems are based on it. As long as there is no price money we can all enjoy the competitions and try to have as much fun as possible doing our personal best.
@jogi: if the audience would judge it would be really unfair because the rider with the most friends, the best marketing, the best videos or the one who lives in the town where the competitions takes place would win. People usualy clap more one names then on skill.
The purpose of that sentence is embodied in this thread. Without that sentence, this conversation would not have happened, and you might still have the same thoughts about Freestylers in Flat competitions that you had when you started the thread. Thanks to you, we’ve had a great discussion where a lot of people had a chance to really think about what should and should not be allowed/restricted in a Flatland competition.
Without that sentence being in there, many people would have read right through the main definition (any tricks done on a flat surface) without realizing it really means any trick. Then this conversation would again not come up until it was too late; during or after the next competition.
Sometimes we have to say things in the rules that wouldn’t be necessary if people were computers, or if we all thought exactly the same way. But since we don’t, sometimes have to be repeated, or explained in multiple ways to make sure the message comes across. Then, after the event or details are better understood by everybody, some of that can be removed because it’s redundant. I think we have a lot of that stuff still cluttering older parts of the rulebook, though we try to clean things up as we go.
That video provides a great example of a tough-to-judge situation. Adrien clearly dominated before the Last Trick. But then Josef got his in one try, and Adrien was unable to land his.
But I’m surprised Josef won, as Last Trick is only 5 out of the 40 points possible. He ended nearly every other line he did with a UPD, while Adrien was much more composed. Was Josef’s Last Trick given too much emphasis over the rest of the battle?
Yeah. Opinions aren’t really to be liked or disliked; they are to be agreed or disagreed with. I can “like” you and disagree with all your opinions, but I can’t really dislike your opinions.
Good for you. As a competitor it is poor taste to complain about judge decisions. Again, you don’t have to agree with them, and it’s fine to question why things were decided the way they were. But to just say the judges suck, or whatever, suggests you were not yet ready to be judged. Before you enter such a competition, you must be prepared to let your fate rest with the judges.
That’s one of the advantages of being in a unicycle club. There are people there who may be able to coach your or share their experiences in a more structured format than the typical non-scheduled Flat practice session.
This sounds a little different from the Julia at the beginning of this thread. To me, that’s a success for the sentence in question. Ryan Woessner was the author of that proposal.
Yup. Even if an audience is trying really hard to apply the rules to determine the winner, as a group they are not going to know the judging rules as well as a trained judge. A percentage of members will not know anything about those rules and another percentage won’t care. They will vote for what “feels right” at that moment. Audience judging almost invariably equals a popularity contest.
Oh, I was going to mention this in an earlier post, but those were all way too long. I just got the JUA News (Japan Unicycling Association), Issue 131. In it is a picture of a guy, dressed like a Mexican wrestler (mask and bright colors), doing what looks like a Flatland trick in his Freestyle performance.
…but really unlikely situation at EUC´s, Unicon,s etc…
also I guess most spectators promote the tricks, not the riders!
with this arguments like this, the “high intelligent” leaders and governments rule finacial desasters and starts wars, cause they know better what is good for nation than the stupid people…
Sadly i think it is not this way. In the extreme disziplines it is a little bit like this because the riders usually dont have a big club with them. But the audience still is much worse in seeing if a rider does a double or tripple flip. Especially at international events (sadly) the nation also plays a big role. I have been on every unicon since 98 and i could see quite well that people prefer it to clap for people they now. Just think about it how you would react if a friend or a person you dont know does the same trick in a competition.
Regardless of the rule or situation: consider that the IUF is executing changes in the rulebook without input from active participants in the events being addressed. This could make it appear that the creation of rules goes on behind closed doors, and when the rules are released they are almost impossible to change. Here we’ve got a couple people on the IUF saying one thing, and the vast majority of participants in flatland competitions saying the opposite.
Those “many people” hopefully would have included the freestyle trainers. Now, the rules sound like an invitation for trainers to use the flatland competition as a second freestyle competition. Which is the overriding problem I’ve had with the whole thing. When it comes to flatland and freestyle, the IUF recognizes two events: a Flatland event, and a Freestyle event. At this time, freestyle is hugely larger than flatland. My concern is that Flatland could be eliminated, by trainers simply encouraging Freestyle riders to perform their freestyle routines during the flatland competition. Because of their far greater numbers and the rule that defines flatland as any trick, it seems likely that the freestyle riders would win.
I still have the same thoughts about freestylers in flat competitions. As recognized by the IUF, freestyle and flatland are different events. I believe this has a purpose. It would be unfortunate if the same freestyle routines came to dominate both competitions. The only place my opinion has changed is that it will be overly challenging to legislate the difference between the styles.
That is the beginning of what it takes to be a good judge for such things. You have to be able to ignore the personalities, and do your best to only judge this one performance. You can’t allow for what you’ve seen the rider do before that, or in practice, especially if you’ve never seen the other rider at all. It can be hard to be dispassionate and even.
Spencer? Really? Other Flat enthusiasts were involved. And how do you think an event like Flat gets to be a Unicon event in the first place? If we waited for random Flat riders to come up with a set of rules and go through the process, we might still be waiting. Except for Spencer (and a few others but he was the leader). No Spencer Hochberg, no Flatland competition.
The rulebook updating process has recently gone on behind poorly-marked doors. I think it was easier to find in the past, but again, many people take no interest until they read the thing and then they decide to be interested. True, once the process is finished and the IUF Board approves the finished rulebook, it basically cannot be changed for the upcoming Unicon.
I don’t know about a vast majority of participants, only a few people have posted in this thread, and some of them probably aren’t even going to Unicon. This is how our rulebook process works, and it has continued to improve over the years. Imagine what it was like in the 80s when it was all done by snail-mail!
But by the same token, Flat riders can enter the Freestyle competition if they want. Why not? Less likely to win? Surely you have to do it in a more audience-friendly style to increase your chances of winning. But what does that say about a Freestyle rider that enters the Flat comp?
Don’t worry, Flatland isn’t going away any time soon. Unless possibly if it ends up being dominated by Freestyle specialists. But do you really think that’s going to happen?
These trick-riding events have morphed a lot over the years. When I first came onto the scene (1980), there was an event called “Individual Trick” and another one called “Individual Trick Chain Drive.” I won the latter one, with only one other competitor. Later I encouraged organizers to drop that event, since participation was minimal, and because you could ride anything in the Individual event later. That event eventually became Freestyle pretty much as it looks today (but much simpler judging). Problem was, there was a whole demographic of riders that wanted to show tricks, but not do all that “show” stuff.
So over the years there were various forms of non-show trick competitions, though they were generally less popular than Freestyle, for whatever reason. Eventually those events ended up turning into Standard Skill. Objective judging! Riders could compare performances that weren’t even in the same country by score! Problem was, no creativity. You have to choose your tricks from an existing list. So there was still a desire for a cutting-edge trick event.
Then came Open-X, introduced around 1999 (at the USA Convention). This event was conceived and developed by Freestyle riders who listened to the complaints of non-performing trick riders. None of them were interested in actually creating the competition event they wanted. Then for a couple of years, officials begged and coaxed top riders, like Dan Heaton, to enter the damn thing. Nobody really prepared for it. This was before Street or Flat syles of riding had names. We did Open-X at Unicon X in China, and the winner was Josue Barreto (it was not divided male/female due to lack of participants). Josue’s performance was very Freestyle-ish but he was the clear winner that time.
But Open-X faded away due to lack of interest/participation. And there was a gap before Flatland came along. When it did, same problem. We needed Flat experts to devise some rules so we could do competitions. It took a while but now we have them. Somebody had to create the rules. Don’t like the rules? Change them. Don’t want to change them? Then you’re letting others run it, which is basically where we are now. Your participation will be welcome!
So what does this say about the quality of riding from the Freestyle world, compared to the Flat world? He or she that does the best tricks (within the structure of the event) deserves to win Flatland. If Flat specialists want to win it in the Flat style, they’ll have to be better than those fancy Freestylers is all.
Flatland is a very young event, and developing fast. Freestyle is well established, and perhaps a little stagnant by comparison. Those pesky Freestylers may be hard to beat until Flatland solidifies more of a personality. Until then, any trick counts. This is the best way to make Flatland a killer event.
Well, what’s so special about flatland, then? Is it just about slouching and wearing baggy clothes? If the freestyle riders are able to do tricks which are just as hard, why shouldn’t they win the competition? I don’t think you’ve articulated that.
In the Josef/Adrien video above, I also believed Adrien should have won. But this is based on my own lack of experience with Flatland judging so I don’t offer an explanation.
Good question! Two answers:
No: If only the judges can see it, what’s the point?
Yes: Because it’s not only the judges, the riders who really know the latest tricks and combos will also have a good idea of what’s harder than what. If it ever becomes only the judges, there’s a problem. Also, the object of these competitive sports events is to do the best performance within the guidelines of how to do it. This automatically makes it more technical than the requirements of just impressing an audience, even in the less complicated world of Flatland.
A Freestyle competition performance is usually not the best performance for a general audience either. The tricks are too hard for nearly any audience to appreciate, which means they are very risky. You wouldn’t take such risks in a “normal” performance. But this is sport, not a show, even though Freestyle is about doing a show.
Because the events are completely different. This makes them very hard to compare equally. As Olaf said earlier, like different languages.
Spencer seems to feel that he’s been ignored and mislead. “I totally agree that sentence shouldn’t be there, I just looked through the old rules and didn’t see it there either…so I don’t know where it came from. Someone just told me it was there before and I assumed it was true.” He’s been a huge help to me and is a great representative for flatland in the IUF. But he’s only 1 person out of 40. How many people in the IUF have experience with freestyle?
What’s your basis for saying that? Have you ever tried it? I would personally write them myself if no one else did. And when that was done, I’d post them publicly and let the RIDERS give their opinions.
Most flatlanders don’t visit here. But all the ones who have posted (finnspin, agentq, Spencer, Luke, Panda) have wanted it out. And I started a poll on facebook to get more opinions. I’ve attached it below, you can see a slight trend emerging.
This is exactly the opposite of what I want. Then we would have two competitions with freestyle routines winning both. So you’re saying that you want to have two identical competitions?
Yes, because freestyle riders outnumber flatland riders, and freestyle judges outnumber flatland judges, the flatland event could be harmed.
I have never seen a freestyle rider do tricks that have been associated with flatland, (rolls/spins/flips) well enough to win a flatland competition. You’re rule seems designed to cause easily performed freestyle tricks to be weighted as heavily as very difficult flatland tricks. The rules say that freestyle tricks (however easy) need to be judged with “equal weight” to flatland tricks (however difficult).
Alright so I haven’t read most of this thread, but I don’t feel like I’ve been ignored or mislead. We did vote to add the sentence in 2010, I didn’t remember the specifics and didn’t realize that there wasn’t a new rulebook published with the changes until the current one. I do agree it shouldn’t be there anymore, for the same reasons that everyone keeps saying. I think right now it won’t change any judging decisions, but next time there’s a rulebook committee other flat riders should participate and propose whatever they want. There are enough motivated people now that the competition could and should be what the riders want it to be.
What makes it a different event? If you can’t articulate that, you can’t judge on it. If you are worried about freestyle riders overwhelming the flat competition, and you believe that what you’re doing is substantively different than what they’re doing, you need to be doing something that they can’t do, and that’s what you need to have in the judging criteria.
I’m sure BMX flatlanders don’t try to keep people who do artistic bicycling from competing and performing their tricks, if they can do so under the rules of the competition.
That’s not what the rule says at all. The rule says that freestyle tricks need to be judged with equal weight to flatland tricks, which to me (a rules geek, not a freestyle nor flatland rider) is very explicitly saying that a hard freestyle trick should be judged equally with a hard flatland trick (if you can define what a flatland trick is).
Does nobody else see a problem in the fact that every single flatland rider (including Spencer) who’s given input on this (the count is well above 30 now) has disagreed with the sentence, but a handful of people on the rulebook committee want it to stay, so nothing is being done?
Sorry, didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. :o From your post on facebook though it did sound like the other people in the IUF ignored your request to remove the sentence and then led you to believe that it had been their all along, when it hadn’t. And I really do appreciate all you’ve done to help with the rulebook, I shudder to think where the flatland rules would be without you and Olaf!
It’s very difficult to articulate, which is why I’m NOT proposing to judge on it. All I’m proposing is that we take out the sentence that actively encourages freestyle trainers to send their riders into the flatland competition. Given time, flatland will develop substantially and there will be enough participation that it would be ridiculous for a freestyle rider to show up and do their routine in the competition. Which is what has happened with BMX flatland, and why they don’t have to worry about artistic bicyclists. The sports have a mutual respect. Also, there isn’t an all encompassing governing body for bicycling, so the BMX riders don’t have to worry that the artistic bicycling governing body is going to make new BMX rules that favor the artistic bicyclists in the BMX competition.
Please cite where the rules say “very explicitly” that the tricks should be judged equally only if they’re of the same difficulty. I actually brought up this exact same issue earlier, and no one responded then either.
I did not use the word “all”; I’m very sure we’ll agree on many things, and probably disagree on as many things.
And; while we’re at it: where you impressed me most was ALSO the very same contest. The video doesn’t show it, and only a tiny part of the audience could have noticed: the moment you were anounced the number of allowed attempts for last trick. Before the speaker finished his words, you extremely selfconvinced replied you would do one atempt only, and soon after nailed it. No failure, simply because you didn’t accept any space for it. A champion additude, not exactly weighted in score, as only unicycling counts. It wasn’t the first time we met. But yes, I think we know eachother.
Why don’t people switch off the TV immediately after a wistle finishes a contest? Why are soccer scores less interresting than a summary of the match? Sport is all about emotions, but judging is not.
In stead of being involved I prefered talking to a higher echelon, IOC and UCI people, those who got mountainbiking and BMX olympic, or those who build up BMX freestyle and skateboarding, and now want those olympic. Getting under the same umbrella was a solution, that came along with my critisism. Contrary to reanimating something dormant.
Admitting the problem is half the solution.
Later I had the "I"UF president invited by the new UCI president, a retired Czech artistic cyclist, likely with more affinity with unicycling than those from racing. The planned venue was the worldchampionship in artistic bicycling in Italy. The "I"UF president was living on the European side of the big pont. She twice ignored my intermediation initiative for the start of just a real dialog between the two organizations. If not disolving than even an alliance, or simply advising communications (based on experience the IUF lacks) could have enriched.
…followed by a proposal limiting unicycling with a rule, not even based on unicycle style, but coordinates of someones birth-cradle. Fascinating is the right word; realizing it didn’t take a unicyclist to bypass such human habit, by proposing an IUF.
AFAIK the USA later turned out pretty modest on exclusion.
If that prevents riders to compete at NAUCC… I see something to tackle which might bring Julia some more competition there.
Neither to me; why first inviting me, and remove me right after I accepting that invitation? I did not had the motivation or time to address it publicly back then.
I talked with Gilby about it. Didn’t knew he initially started it. And am allowed to create it on this server (unicyclist.com). I prefer his hardware, so that we wont be in the same locked out situation as before. Just ago I emailed Gossi about it.
Yes; cash is not exactly a booster of nice sport, getting the best out of people. But I think sponsoring is slow but steady growing, and -despite concerns- is now working pretty well so far.
Or cause; In my believe the IUF had no other option than adopt the flatland, or face a unicycling competition growing outside the IUF. A radical different setup of the event was unavoidable, due to experiences known from freestyle.
Still I think the proposal came straight from notable flatland unicyclists, in particular Spencer and Kevin, and arrived in rulebook commitee trough Olaf, who’s -like me- maybe not too active in competing, but who is a huge blessing to the sport, as he’s not only is talking or typing, but actually organized great events that were essential for the growt of flatland. So, to set the record straight: the rules came did NOT came from inactive riders or others on a distance with the riders.
I think it’s opposite: it’s very hard to compare things that are completely equal.
That why I think everyone is concerned about having a text that implicates definitions as “freestyle is unicycling no different to flatland” and “flatland is unicycling no different to freestyle”. If we focus and simplefy those, than the unicycling could be refered to as unicycling, and then (in alphabetic order) “flatland” and “freestyle” should only be used and interpretted as reference to the setup of events.
They are followed by section 4.11, which discusses the scoring, including 4.11.3:
I can’t imagine how you could read these sections and interpret them as saying that easy freestyle tricks should be judged equally with difficult flatland tricks (if you ever get around to defining how the two are different.) All of this very clearly (to a rules geek) indicates that the difficulty of a trick, and the ability to combine it with others in a flowing way, is how the event should be judged, whether the tricks are “traditional” flatland or “traditional” freestyle tricks. If Irene comes out and does stomach-on-seat hand wheel walk as her last trick, she deserves a lot of points because that’s a freakin’ hard trick, and the only reason most flatlanders don’t do it is because they can’t. If I come out and do two seconds of one-foot idle and fall off, I should get about the same amount of points as I would if I came out and did two seconds of a crank roll and fell off.
It could be read either way. It doesn’t say " easy freestyle tricks should be judged equally with difficult flatland tricks", but, neither does it make it clear that the freestyle tricks should be of equal difficulty either.
Along with all the other failings of the sentence in question, it also suffers from being vague in that respect.
clearly the consensus is that the sentence is not good and should be removed.
The only claimed good aspect of the sentence to now seems to be that it’s inspired some discussion but, even there, the discussion was triggered by someone pointing out that it should be removed.
That’s relieving, it seems likely then that the freestyle riders were only registering at EUC because there was no freestyle competition, and it might not be a problem at all in other conventions.
