TimW

True story: When SA Olympic competitors were asked for their biographies for the media guide, one of the questions (along with age, height, sports heroes, best quote, people you would most like to invite for supper etc etc) was pet hate. The person putting it together decidd to take out answers such as: dogs, cats, fishes and hamsters from about half the competitors.

It is not a series. They are sponsors -- not quite sure I understand the concept too well, but it seems they are basically a sponsor signed up by CSA to contribute to all the races in return for certain branding rights at all these events via their hospitality areas at each event.

Point taken ... there are different ways to determine who is best -- one event as in SA champs, times as in best of the year, or maybe an average or series and we would probably get three different answers. Oscar was fastest this year but probably LJ van Zyl would have to be considered the best, although he was injured so was not able to run at his best this year -- LJ was the best in 2011 by the way. Just as an aside, as much as I personally do not think Oscar should be running at the Olympics in pure sporting terms, I do believe he is a great inspiration and maybe that is enough to make his appearance at London 2012 worth bending of the rules.

I do not believe this is the question we need to be asking ... it is impossible to prove if they give him an advantage (even the boring old argument that you should cut off your legs and see how fast you run is pointless, because you cannot compare learning a new skill (using prosthesis) to a lifelong habit (learning to walk -- as Oscar did with his prosthesis when his parents made the decision to amputate when he was a baby so he could learn to walk with them). But if we ask: Is his performance (times) determined by his prosthesis? The answer surely has to be yes, and he admitted it this week when he accused the Brazilian of running faster by altering the size of his prothesis. Somebody made the point that Oscar would alter his prosthesis for the next Olympics. He can't do that, because he would fall foul of the "normal-bodied" rules which allow him to run at the Olympics. They have been set (after all the court cases) so as to ensure Oscar does not win -- in other words it is like putting a limit on his top speed (or a rev limiter on a F1 car) to manipulate how fast he competes over 400m. The rules for Paralympics are different, which is why the Brazilian could alter his legs and run faster over the final 100m. In a 500m race Oscar would beat able bodied athletes easily, because his prosthesis allow him to run faster over the end of a race due to a whole host of scientific reasons (including using less oxygen while running), but his starts are slow -- that is why he does not shape in a 200m race against able-bodied athletes. We don't have better 400m runners. I think he ran the fastest time of all SA athletes in 2011 or 2012 (I think -- am checking but Iaaf site won't let me on so will edit if I am wrong)

Who have you put on the podium? Sorry, but I don't think she was on the podium -- I am pretty sure there is no sub vet category in Epic (I may be wrong though). She finished 10th mixed team and 132nd overall, and best was a seventh on a stage. Very good results, but not the podium.

He has never won an Olympic medal (he does have a World Champs medal for 4x400). But, he did qualify for Olympics (ran a time quick enough for IAAF and IOC to accept him into Olympics if Sascoc nominated him) ... as for Sascoc rules, he did not meet the Sascoc criteria for 400m BUT according to Sascoc agreement (signed with Athletics SA two years ago) as a member of the 4x400m team he is allowed to run in 400 because he ran better than the B qualifying time. The 4x400m team qualified to enter because they were considered to have medal potential. Read Ross Tucker's analysis of Oscar (search on the web) it is a good (but very long read). There is no doubt he is a very inspirational athlete because of what he has achieved (and maybe that is enough for him to run at olympics ????) , but I think he has proven over the past couple of days that his speed is determined by his prosthesis and not his natural ability. I believe he has admitted with his statements that he can adjust he speed depending on what "legs" he is wearing and that makes a farce of an even competition.

Problem for him is that she is the SA MTB champion and he is not ... well, he is in cross country, but not for marathons. I feel sorry for their kids ... what if the poor child hates cycling !!!!

Very briefly, Robyn de Groot scored her UCI points from a Team Time Trial in July last year and African Champs. The following are extracts from the Appeal Panel's findings: 3.1.5.2. It was agreed to, in the appeal hearing, that the criteria should therefore only pertain to results and rankings from 01 October 2011. ... so the team time trial result cannot be used to get a UCI ranking. 3.2.1.The panel concurs that the e-mail detailing the selection criteria to be the final criteria from which the riders meeting the highest criteria will indeed be considered for selection; 3.2.1.1. The emphasis here being, that, from the long list of riders to whom this e-mail was sent, only those fulfilling the highest criteria would be in line for further consideration for final selection; 3.2.1.2. It is the panels understanding, that due to the fact that South Africa only qualified for 3 places in the Games, that only riders meeting the highest criteria would be considered further; 3.2.1.3. The long list consisted of: Moolman-Pasio, Taylor, Van De Winkel, De Groot; Olivier and Pretorius; 3.2.2.After the exclusion of points earned in African Championships and National Championships points, both Olivier and Pretorius did not meet any of the highest criteria, and therefore excluded from any further consideration; 3.2.2.1. It is agreed that Olivier and Pretorius had not attained the highest criteria due to a lack of international exposure during the time period confirmed in terms of 3.1.5.2 above; 3.2.2.1.1.1. Both Olivier and Pretorius had no UCI ranking at the end of the period; (Underlining is me highlighting the key issues) If the team time trial results are excluded, Robyn only has points from her African Champs and there is no debate that those should be excluded. So, if Olivier and Pretorius are excluded because they have no UCI ranking, then Robyn must be as well, becuase she has no UCI points after October 1. This then only leaves Moolman-Pasio, Taylor, Van De Winkel as meeting the criteria according to point 3.2.1.1 On the basis of that the selection of a three-person team becomes rather simple. But now the problem is where to from here? Sascoc has to finalise the team on July and send it to IOC, so there seems to be no time frame for a high court appeal (to get a signed affidavid from Cherise in Italy -- needed for the high court appeal -- will take time and even if it could be finalised the court cannot re-select the team, they can only say there was a problem in the selection and force CSA to re-select (again). Cherise's lawyer is trying to find out if the July 4 deadline is a DEADline or a line that can be adjusted in the case of a legal issue such as this. The options are (I think): CSA should do the right thing and admit an error and include Cherise (but that means excluding Robyn which seems very harsh, but still the right thing I think) Robyn withdraws (I think she has been something of an innocent victim in this and I guess that is unlikely) Cherise drops her challenge (she seems determined to get justice and it is difficult to blame her seeing as it is pretty obvious she has been harshly treated) The court process goes through a decision is made after the fact, but CSA comes out of it with egg splattered all over their face -- if this happens there should (in my opinion) be resignations !!!! Of course all this is just my humble opinion ... PS: The panel has, by the way, reinforced the time frame issue by excluding some of Cherise's "representations on her capabilities as a domestique" because they "mostly fall outside the time frame agreed" and the panel verified evidence that "Taylor did not fulfil the role as domestique/lead out duringthe time frame stipulated in paragraph 3.1.5.2 ..."

The best things I did when I did Epic ... (in order of importance) ... 1) Had a great mechanic who took my bike off me at the finish and washed and repaired it ready for next day so I could concentrate on recovery and bike was perfect. The best mechanic you can get the better your bike will be and the easier your race will be. 2) Had massages after each day. 3) Looked after my bum like I was a gay prostitute 4) Made sure I eat as much as possible as soon as I could after the finish each day (standard meal was three hamburgers each, plus recovery drink before we showered) 5) forced breakfast down each morning (was tougher than I thought) 6) Do not let your partner kill you -- if you are struggling, communicate ... actually make sure you are communicating from day one (forget the macho bull***t -- the better you feel the better your partner will do). 7) Rode a steady pace from Day 1 and passed loads of people on overall position on the last three days 8) packed everything I needed each day into separate packets and marked them (including juice bottle mixes pre-measured into individual packets -- both for before the start and at each water point). 9) New shirts and shorts for each day -- not as in just bought, but as in do not wash each day (seal them and their smell in packets and throw in the washing machine after the race). In short, do everything you can to make your time after each stage as hassle free as possible

Errrr, so do you prefer spending your money on older ones? Sorry, could not resist taking it out of context!

1) I don't think the race organiser is not following CSA rules -- you son should be able to ride races up to 35km ... but maybe the organiser feels the event is too tough. Your 9-year-old son has completed a 28km MTB race but can he complete all 28km races? And if he (or you if you are riding with him) gets in trouble out on the course, who will have to rescue him and will he have the maturity to be able to handle any situation (although, having said that, I know a few adults that should not be out on the trails !!!). 2) You joining the race illegally is purely a form of theft -- you are (IMO) stealing the race organisers time and infrastructure. And I hear the cries of "we will not stop at the water points" ... but there is a lot more to a race than the water points and the trail he has probably cut and prepared and possibly paid landowners to use.

Look in Hilton ... loads of B&Bs and very close to W Cup venue .... or you could try PMB itself.

Got this today .... No South African team has ever won the Cape Epic, nor has any South African mountain biker worn the coveted World Marathon Champion’s Rainbow Jersey. In 2011, David George and Kevin Evans of Nedbank Team 360Life set out to remedy this. In their quest to compete with the very best, they would have to overcome obstacles and setbacks more daunting than they ever imagined. This is their story. (Here's an early teaser from the project. We'll have the official trailer for you soon!) Film Premier Details <a http://i3.cmail4.com/ei/r/F0/C0C/228/csimport/Collages13.175123.jpg 8th March – The Pavilion, V&A Waterfront, Cape Town 13th March – Nu Metro Monte Casino, Johannesburg 14th March – Gateway Barnyard, Umhlanga Ridge, KZN Tickets are NOW available through Webtickets.

David George Tweet sums it all up: "OMG gents, talk about a stormy tea cup"

Because it was a question to CSA: He was fined a couple of years ago for logos on his SA Champs jersey and wanted to know if he could design his own SA Champs jersey ... not a question Burry could answer. As I understand it, it was basically a question regarding the rules NOT something he wanted to end up resulting in problems for Burry.

OK, I have been given some info from somebody who seems to know the real story (seems like they wanted me to let everybody know so here goes) ... As I understand it .. 1) Kevin Evans asked a question of CSA regarding Burry's jersey ... I don't think he wanted any action (DQ or fine) but wanted clarity after an issue with the SA Champs jersey a couple of years ago and they were interested to know if they could design their own jersey. As far as I am aware Burry's jersey is approved by UCI so he should be able to wear it without a problem -- do you have to wear the SA Champs jersey whenever you race or is it your decision when to wear it? 2) CSA contacted Burry and left a message wanting answers from Burry about the jersey 3) It seems Burry got the wrong end of the stick from the message and thought Kevin wanted action to be taken, hence the original tweets (two of them). 4) Once he had spoken to a couple of people, Burry retracted the DQ tweet and replaced it with sanction, but I think the decision "to sanction him"is more likely to come from CSA rather than guys he is racing against. 5) In my humble opinion this is a classic case of a couple of broken telephones and more people jumping to conclusions. As I understand it Kevin and David are not to blame and simply wanted an answer, and Burry maybe over-reacted a bit without knowing the full facts.

Ooops, Burry just posted a tweet: @africanmtbkid sorry guys, I meant sanctioned. not disqualified

It is not Brandon ... his tweets: @bsbrandon: @africanmtbkid trying to get you DQ so can get leader Jersey.. If that's how they want to get it, feel very sorry for them!! As far as I know Burry and Brandon get on pretty well.

ROAG Series Press Release The KwaZulu-Natal based Race Organisers Admin Group (ROAG) last week launched the inaugural ROAG Series with the biggest first prize for a mountain bike series in the country. The aims of the ROAG Series are to boost interest in mountain biking by recognising up-and-coming youngsters and providing a platform for weekend-warriors to challenge their mates, but it is the R20 000 first prize that will excite the country’s elite male and female riders. The ROAG Series will consist of ten of the largest mountain bike races in the province during the 2012 calendar year, with a Grand Prix-style points system deciding the overall and category winners. Riders have to take part in at least seven of the events and their best seven results will count toward deciding the winners. Most of the races are between 40 and 45km distance and all take place in KwaZulu-Natal. The series starts with the CycleLab Wartburg Classic on February 25 and includes the 105km Sunday Tribune Jeep Hill2Hill in September before the series ends with the Mountain Splendour Mania in November. The series organisers anticipate the series will grow to include events outside KZN in future. ROAG is currently in discussion with a series sponsor and hopes to increase the prize money, but for now have agreed to underwrite the prizes and promised a minimum of R20 000 for the overall winner of both the men’s and women’s series. All age categories will be included with riders younger than 14 being recognised in the intermediate 20-25km races at each event. The series will host a year-end ROAG Series Awards Dinner where riders’ achievements will be acknowledged, and dedicated series riders (who have ridden all ten events) will receive a ROAG Series memento. For more information on the ROAG Series and the ten events, visit the ROAG website (www.roag.co.za/about/roag-series.aspx) or contact Megan at the ROAG Offices (086 100 ROAG).

How can a magazine be part of/own/sponsor a shop ... goes completely against the principle of unbiased journalism. By definition they now have a vested interest in any review they do!

Who needs spelling? CWC or CRC -- same thing -- I search for CRC and I find an online cycling shop

Who are those guys? Unless .... I think maybe Barry Stunder = Burry Stander Mark Basenwait = Marc Bassingthwaighte Phillip Buys = Philip Buys Rouck Kraucer = Rourke Croeser Brandon Steward = Brandon Stewart

Anybody heard about the new MTB series in KZN? ... heard of some big prizemoney for the series using already established races. It seems the top elite men and women will be getting some serious cash at the end of the year. Also it seems all other categories (from sprogs up to grandmasters) will also be rewarded. If what I have heard is true I think a few elites will be changing their 2012 schedules.

Thanks ... I understand your thought processes better and it makes sense. I was not having a go at you, just voicing (typing) my thoughts. I guess it is a case of either being able to ride all the trails (down Gravity, up "white house", down Bizhub to Waterfall) or people having a choice of one of three options at the Link (down Gravity, or down "white house" or down Bizhub to waterfall). My option would be the latter -- but that is simply MY opinion and it will be interesting to see what others prefer. BTW, I think you guys who maintain and build trails need medals. It is easy for the likes of me to be critical after enjoying the fruits of your labours, so thanks for all your work.

Tommy, I think what you are saying is exactly what I was thinking after ridign there yesterday ... The new jumps and tabletops are great if you like that sort of thing and whoever built them has done a great job. But why also make it so you can only go up the lower Bizhub section. The new entrance to the lower Bizhub with the climb up is (IMO) a waste of good trail. Why not leave the old link as it is and then at the T junction you can choose to go left or right. Left takes you down what I thought was a great section which eventually joins back to Gravity -- people can choose the jumps or the single track down (coming up that section past the old house is just another climb while it is fun going the other way). Right at the T Junction will take you to the new Bizhub to the Waterfall without the schlepp of having to climb to it. I also think you are going to get people who want to use the Waterfall route to simply using the old link to get to there (and by the look of the tracks they are already doing that). Just my thoughts