widget

I think the Pro-tour has been lingering on and just delaying the inevitable - a slow death. Yes, you are right Ox Wagon, the UCI could book alternative races, like they threatened to do with the Vuelta, but I think when it comes to the Giro and the TDF the funding, country pride and prestige of these two events especially would ensure all sponsors will demand their teams ride these events. ......but it could be interesting. Would the big races here (94.7, Argus, Hyper to Hyper etc) ever opt out and go it alone, (ie) No temp license / any license required for recreational riders, throw the option open to the pro teams, ride if you like / can / want to - its up to you etc.......................I dont know, I think they could do it if they wanted to, funding is not an issue, nor is promotional ability, I think they will still get their numbers of participants which is what matters in the long run - so Yes, they could go it alone, perhaps if red tape sees riders opting out of events they may - who knows? widget2007-09-20 05:16:00

Quite honestly, if they havnt seen the threads over the last few months, they arnt doing their job (ie) Keeping abreast of relevant topics. ....but unfortunately, it seems SC is rather loathe to tackle "prickly" subjects.

Actually, you are incorrect. Most recreational cyclists who ride the big races know very well where their money is going - CHARITY - its well published, the sponsors promote it, the charities thank them for it, some people even ride to collect money individually for the charities - so NO, its not ploughed back into cycling, because to be honest and blunt (please dont take offence), what did cycling put in to expect a return - in my opinion it gos to a better cause and is one of the reasons why many folk participate. What has / will cycling (or a license) done (or what will it ever do) for Mom and Pop who puff their way around in 7 hours and go home feeling good that at the very least, they contributed to someones dinner next week? Why expect them to be "happily" inconvenienced. Even lap dogs bite when they are pushed too far. widget2007-09-18 08:09:55

Is there a report out somewhere' date=' I cant find anything to substantiate this on the web.[/quote'] Nor can I, and were it public, it would be everywhere, thats for sure.

I also see Landis will hear his fate in a few days...? Hands up all those who say he will be found guilty. Me,Me,Me...............!

Which sport do you want to look at ? Every sport has the same structure and rules' date=' tennis, hockey, rugby, cricket, swimming, Pigdeon racing, show jumping, Endurance horse riding, snooker, darts, Karate, wrestling and Boxing. Why should cycling be a special case?[/quote'] "Absolute Rubbish" guy in pink.! It seems to me you are doing a bit of thumb sucking here, Just from the few sports you mention you dont need to belong to any formal CLUB structure to play, tennis, golf, swimming, squash,and definately NOT for Pigeon racing, if its considered a sport. On sports like Karate, Boxing and wrestling you need to join a do jo or club, for the simple reason of "formal training" by a qualified instructor - how do you learn the sport of karate, boxing etc (unless you come from Boksburg - sorry Scotty!) without training - last time I looked you dont need formal training to ride a bike. The fact is the club system is a "dinosaur" its never worked well in any sport, because it serves no purpose other than a cash collecting mechanism, I can train just as well on my own (and do) if I am good enough I will enter and win races on my own and get noticed - so WHY do we need clubs?

I have said it before, but running (the popular choice) is a very poor example - running has been in severe decline for the last 10 years, in general most SA runners can ill afford a license fee, travel costs, entry fee etc to run a race, which if they get a prize, will feed their family for a month, if they dont get a prize, they CANT afford to run. .............so lets look to another sport please, after 10 comrades, and 9 Two Oceans events, I have a small knowledge of the politics of the sport.

- Well said - "I certainly".... think he should.!

Of, course he could, as could the LAF - a phone call, a chat a handshake and its sorted, however, that is not the way of "bullies" they far prefer to be confrontational, and, as is shown, LA and his foundation are just a few more arrogant american bullies.

Yes, I couldnt have put it better myself.

In my opinion the LAF is more about Lance than about cancer (as it likes to claim) The very fact that they have bothered with this petty case shows me where their priorities lie. The LAF is not meant to be a profit making business, its meant to spend its resources on its core business, bothering with a small fish like this is just typical of the "bully attitude" - the number of people would even associate the two is probably so miniscule its non existant. Furthermore, The LA foundation wants funding from you and I and others like us all over the world by purchasing their products, but the facts are that they ARE PREDOMINANTLY visible and active in the USA - now why would I want to give my funding to a foreign based support group when so many organisations here are desperate for funding and they help the very people I see every day?

I didnt see the show, but I know Johann well, his mechanical knowledge is excellant and he has been doing this for years, he studies things carefully and his suggestions and advice are carefully considered, personally I would lean heavily towards his suggestions and advice.

I hate it, especially when its longer than advertised, its a garaunteed way of putting me in a bad mood. Theres nothing worse than expecting the end (especially if you dont know the route) in say 10 kms and it ends up actually 15 or even 20 kms away. ..........and theres no excuse for it really, its just plain apathetical on the organisers behalf.

They always start this hype Homer, things will slow down. Last year there was still openings in Jan. despite all the hype and b******t early on.

Yes, sure. I cant remember where I read this, but there has been a concerted effort in the USA by the Medical Insurance Funds (medical aids) to have the mandatory Motor cycle Helmet laws repealed in the states that still regulate and control this act. It seems the medical funds have been working it out and found that there was a greater chance of survival in motor cycle accidents where people were wearing helmets - thus high medical fund bills - in cases where people were not wearing helmets, there was a greater chance of the death of the cyclist - thus NO medical bills. So after some number crunching, they figured that getting rid of these laws would save them money. Now theres a scary thought.!

All insurers will cover your bike, but in general I think "Mutual and Federal" have one of the better "attitudes" when it comes to paying out this type of claim. widget2007-09-05 05:27:39

I didnt see anything in the newspapers this morning (Citizen) either.

Yup, pretty straight forward, isnt it steve.! Amazing how many folk still risk it though.

Hmmm, sounds grim Psycho, - I think a big problem is the lack of standards in the cycling industry. There is no official "frame repair guide" from the manufacturers like in the Auto industry, by which the insurer can judge and set standards, so, they rely on the retailer who may or may not be that competant and may or may not know what to do, and unfortunately, in many cases, may just see an insurance claim as a means of making a quick sale - which is something the insurer will be loathe to support. I dont know the answer, except to maybe engage the insurer and refine your policy - (ie) perhaps pay a slightly higher premium, but on the basis of a "replacement clause" in place of a "repair clause"?

'nope, insurance doesnt cover you if in accident when drunk. You must then sue him in his personal capacity. Lots of costs and moeite and if he doesnt have the money, tough sh*t." ............I think you need to clarify your point Fanie as I think its causing some misunderstanding - you are correct in saying "an insurance will not cover somebody when under the influence" however, should you be involved in an accident with a drunk party "your own insurance has an obligation to pay damages to you" - after all you have no control over the 3 rd party. ........however, his insurance would decline his claim. Unfortunately, should you not have insurance - well yes, you would need to take legal action against him to recover your loss - however, its a fairly simple process and if you can prove he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol its a fairly water tight case - you just have to hope he has assets. and have a lot of patience - the wheels of justice turn slowly.