Riders banned from New Forest sportives for urinating in public

Herd mentality, safety in numbers, desperate attempt to do anything that looks 'pro' and the anonymity afforded by helmet and dark glasses. Some people are just dicks whatever. I think the organisers did the right thing in the case and I don't envy them having to deal with the NIMBY nutjobs.

I think its safe to assume that there will not have been adequate facilities provided. By adequate, you have to look at a man's willingness to wait for a toilet, compared with the simplicity of cocking a leg up against the nearest bush/tree etc.

Actually, I am fairly sure there are H&S recommendations for toilets provided compared to participant numbers, I would love to know how many attended the sportive, and how reasonable the toilet provision was.

I think its also safe to assume that public urination means different things to different people. To me, it means getting my todger out and blatantly piddling in full view of someone that is likely to take offence... namely women and PC gentlemen.

To others, it means urinating in any environment not designated as a toilet no matter how discreet.

I'm fairly comfortable that anyone doing the former is likely to get called up on it...

Anyway, this is all a mute point. Personally speaking I think the NIMBY's have won this battle. As mentioned, the organisers are publicly demonstrating that they are taking a 'hard line' on riders that anyone outside the event may take offence to. no matter how right they may be in doing this (I am no fan of littering, lane hogging or whatever), the reality is this/these events now are all about fighting a battle with teh local public...

Why bother with that? There are loads of great sportives out there, what make the New Forest so special that you have to spend your time making sure you can not be perceived as riding 3 a breast, making sure nothing accidentally falls from your pockets, and aware of where the next public convenience is?

Move on to the next one I say.

If the sportive cyclists were blatantly taking a piss in the open near a hotel, then yes they should be chastised, banned whatever. This is not acceptable behaviour, just like people wilfully dropping litter when there are bins nearby.

However if this is because the facilities were poor in number and hygiene and riders couldn't wait any longer, then it's draconian to ban riders from wiggle events.

I am a regular purchaser from wiggle and if it's the latter then my money would be spent elsewhere in protest to their over reaction to a quite normal bodily function if done discreetly.

So the NF anti cycle movement aren't going to big up any slight infringement that takes place?? The organisers don't want to antagonise the locals so must take action!!
Bet the riders involved wished they had shat on the village green now as I feel it would have carried the same punishment!

Their event, their rules. Don't like 'em? Piss off.

Quote from Chrissie Wellington famous champion triathlete:

"Apologies also go out to those riding behind me. It could not have been pleasant to bear the brunt of my 6 pees (But having already suffered a painful thorny backside experience i wasnt about to stop and relieve myself behind a cactus)."

Can't comment with any authority without having seen the location in question. Nothing wrong with the occasional discreet pee by the side of the road but loads of people doing it in plain sight does kind of take the piss, if you'll forgive the pun. Be subtle, people! There are always a few wankers on any sportive, mind you.

Meanwhile I'm worried about the amount of generalised anti-cycling sentiment in the New Forest these days. That's one place off the cycle touring wish list but hey, not like cyclists bring any money into an area or anything, is it?

Try Israel (Tel Aviv), where whole vans/buses stop at the roadside so that en mass pissing can take place...and Israelis think nothing of stopping and taking a piss into the road/gutter on a night walk home from the pub

Having a slash is public is not on.

Go in the trees...like in a Forest.

If the slashing was done in a widely accessible area...come on people, have a word with yourselves

Given the efforts by certain residents of the New Forest to prevent the event taking place, I suspect the organisers felt they had little choice but to take this action in an attempt to deny local nimbys ammunition. Smacks of desperate (and slightly pointless) after the event damage control.

Without knowing all of the facts, stopping to piss next to facilities seems a bit stupid/selfish. I find it difficult to believe that anyone on start line was not aware of need to be on "best behaviour" given efforts of aforementioned nimbys. In my (admittedly limited) previous experience of Wiggle sponsored sportives you get a briefing at start line which covers things like this.

I wouldn't want a collection of randoms stopping and pissing on my front lawn, but I don't have a problem with someone relieving themselves by the road side where road runs through woods (which I presume it does quite a bit in New Forest) or other public lands. Extra marks for trying to find some kind of foliage to shelter behind. But I don't think much of objections based on the fact that impressionable members of the public/children might spy genitalia - we've all got some (genitalia that is) and you can always choose to maintain eye contact to avoid being surprised.

Laying the brown out of doors is well beyond the pale, however.

Paula Radcliffe didn't get banned from the London Marathon and she pee'd on the BBC. This is crazy, did people really abandon their bikes in the middle of the road to go the toilet, if they did maybe someone should check the food in that hotel.

So, Wiggle and the organisers have been under pressure from the NIMBYs and local council bods, they find out about this merry band of small-bladdered sportivists (sportiveurs?) and it's an easy win for them to be seen 'doing something' about it.

I have been on some UK Cycling Events sportives and have found the toilet situation to be woefully inadequate in terms of number, frequency and hygiene, worse than Glastonbury IMO so I'm not surprised folk peed on the floor.

Hmm, pee in public - all hell breaks out. Breastfeed a baby in full public view in a swimming baths - get told to stop, then sue and get a payoff. Mad world.

/\ this..jump on the back or ride it whenever you like.

That'll teach those riders. Now they'll be stuck having to just ride on these public roads without paying a fortune for the privilege.

Poor buggers.

Interesting, this. I know the area well and where the alleged pissing took place isn't somewhere in the middle of nowhere, it's a busy area that'll be occupied by families and other non-cyclists on days out (I even looked at the hotel for my wedding), so the prospect of seeing a bunch of impatient, red-faced mamils with their cocks out is rather unpleasant. But, elsewhere on the route where there won't be anyone other than the odd pony around, does seem fair game, *if* you're discreet about it.

I daren't even read the comments on the Daily Echo about this. Their "readers" have enough of an anti-cyclist bias as it is, so news such as this is like fanning the flames with a hand grenade... Best be that extra bit vigilant on the commute tomorrow morning.

FFS, I give up, They were taking a piss in the hotel grounds, infront of others....not just wild in a field or forest like an animal would.

If you cannot see the difference, then you are a lost cause.

How about the horses? They pee and crap all over the place yet they are not singled out.

So,more than two abreast...how do you define the difference between this and two abreast being overtaken by another?

will they ban TDF riders in Yorkshire/Essex?

For god's sake, it's just a wee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072905

and Things We Don't Know:

How long was the queue for the loos at the time?
Given the 'ban' on bodily functions except at Approved Locations, how long had it been since the last?
Were the 8 suffering from any sort of medical condition?
What does 'In full view of families' even mean? what distance? were the riders hanging it out over picnic tables?

Would a rider who had paid a lot of cash and most likely travelled a long distance, willingly and flagrantly jeopardise their future participation? Seems to me there must be substantial extenuating circumstances.

IMHO this event and the organisers with their pandering to a hateful, bigoted minority have jumped the shark. Seems to be a Stockholm Syndrome developing of the organiser fawning obsequiously at the feet of Mary Whitehouse-esque councillors and community leaders. Hold the event, set the bar for future bans at the level of gross misconduct or criminality.

When you gotta go, you gotta go. Now they're gone.