Loupie Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 If anyone can start a boycott the MTBers can. Can anyone shed any light on why the no-camera rule exists. Because I honestly cannot think af any reason why they are banned, safety or otherwise!!!! They don't want you to have proof if you get run over by a buck!
DJR Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Initially the UCI banned on-bike/helmet cameras because they were worried that footage will be sold, causing them loss of revenue from broadcasting rights. Also, their contracts with the broadcasters usually stipulated exclusivity. They called it a safety rule (ha ha). CSA are affiliated to UCI and had to follow that rule etc. etc. I think the rule is getting some re-thinking because they do realise that it could be quite exciting to see footage filmed by Steve Peat flying down a DH track, or John-Lee Augustyn diving over the edge of the Alps. Edited February 14, 2014 by DJR wiledog_x 1
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 No amounts mentioned in the judgement. Am not a lawyer, but costs aren't a simple issue. It's not a matter of plain billing. That's another matter that is fought over.
renburg Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 See judgment at http://www.pedalpower.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Judgment_140214.pdf
Stretch Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 So basically because of this CSA will have to pay ppa legal fees... Net result... My CSA fees will go up because of some stupid (ppa) organisation that means and does nothing in my life...
walkerr Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Money leaves the sport and goes to lawyers. Whoever won, I can say for sure it wasn't Cycling or Cyclists Sworks20 and Pants Boy 2
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 So basically because of this CSA will have to pay ppa legal fees... Net result... My CSA fees will go up because of some stupid (ppa) organisation that means and does nothing in my life... CSA only have themselves to blame here. No use getting hyped up by an organisation standing up for themselves in what was an attempt at getting control of their funding power and reserves. NicoBoshoff, ichops and Headshot 3
Pure Savage Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Money leaves the sport and goes to lawyers. Whoever won, I can say for sure it wasn't Cycling or Cyclists I am glad a little money was spent stopping further money going to CSA and being wasted. Rather clean house now and build CSA up from nothing with no funds, rather than fumbling around getting bank rolled. Now more money goes to charity and the sport and not some "tax collector" Spend a little to save a lot. ichops and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2
DJR Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 So basically because of this CSA will have to pay ppa legal fees... Net result... My CSA fees will go up because of some stupid (ppa) organisation that means and does nothing in my life... CSA is the one that precipitated this, basically because they wanted the PPA money while not allowing the PPA any say over how it is spent. In the longer term the PPA, I think, will probably ensure that more money goes to cycling because they fought this battle in court. They were right, from the start. It is sad that it came to this, but I commend the PPA for standing up against a bully, for themselves and for all recreational cyclists. Who will eventually win the war remains an open question. I hope that SASCOC and CSA will come to their senses and not use politics to destroy something of great value (PPA) because they got a bloody nose this time. I wish I could see into the future. Headshot, Pure Savage, Lucky Luke. and 6 others 9
GaryvdM Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) So, I wonder if the CSA are going to be pricks and enforce UCI rule 1.2.019 No licence holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognised by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI. A national federation may grant special exceptions for races or particular events run in its own country. If the CSA choose not to "grant special exceptions" for PPA races like the Argus, then these races will have to become a alphabet soup only affair, with no licensed riders (elites and vets.) This will only diminish the Argus slightly IMHO. It's the alphabet soup riders that make the race, not the elites. However, during his election campaign Brian Cookson promised to revisit the rule if elected.I think it's a rule that needs looking at again, I can't encourage people to break a rule because I'm a member of the governing body that put the rule in the book as it were, but I think it's something that needs some major review. The overarching principle should be that people want to join your organization and want to participate in your events rather than trying to force people into that, which will always be problematic. Edited February 16, 2014 by GaryvdM
TALUS Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I think the Americans have already anounced they will not enforce the rule this year (at least).
Omar Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 the scenario in the states is that they have a few big amateur races with big prize money but they are private races ie u don't need a racing license. the the us pros race them in spite of them facing a suspension for taking part in a non sanctioned event. here the ppa don't have races they have rides (their words) with no prize money, income generated is donated to charity iow the cyclists is being screwed.
NicoBoshoff Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 the scenario in the states is that they have a few big amateur races with big prize money but they are private races ie u don't need a racing license. the the us pros race them in spite of them facing a suspension for taking part in a non sanctioned event. here the ppa don't have races they have rides (their words) with no prize money, income generated is donated to charity iow the cyclists is being screwed. How are the cyclists being screwed? I don's see a gun to anyone's head at the number collection points. And the Argus has no prize money for the Elites? Raaaaait... ichops 1
andydude Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Just to be fair I checked the CSA site also, but there is no mention of the judgement, I suppose they "need more time to study it". They sent out an email on the 14th... Judgement: Pedal Power Association vs Cycling SA and SASCOC 14 February 2014 – The judgement for the case between the Pedal Power Association (PPA), Cycling South Africa and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) was handed down this morning.Her Ladyship, Justice Savage, delivered judgement in the matter of the PPA versus Cycling SA and SASCOC, which was decided in favour of the PPA. Cycling SA respect the legal process and, together with SASCOC’s legal representatives, are considering the judgement in order to chart the way forward.Cycling SA remains committed to doing what is in the best interests of our sport.The full report can be read here: http://www.cyclingsa.com/App_Resources/Uploads/FILE00003175.pdfENDS
andydude Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 So basically because of this CSA will have to pay ppa legal fees... Net result... My CSA fees will go up because of some stupid (ppa) organisation that means and does nothing in my life... But according to the judgement you won't need a CSA license for any event, except perhaps provincial and national champs?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now