CSA / PPA. The Heat is on

[andydude]

And to think, some people just want to ride and race their bikes...

[GoLefty!!]

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...

 

Your costs will go up because of a stupid CSA organisation that bit off more than it could chew.

[andydude]

Your costs will go up because of a stupid CSA organisation that bit off more than it could chew.

 

I won't be surprised if they appeal the judgement. Remember, at the back is Government and it's easy to appeal if it's not your own money.

 

This goes wider than just cycling and could hit running and other sports even harder.

[GoLefty!!]

It won't go further because the interpretation of the UCI's constitution by CSA is flawed. CSA only has jurisdiction over events that want to be sanctioned. They cannot by law be automatically the official sanctioning body for any event that involves a bicycle. Event organisers have a constitutional right to autonomy.

 

All CSA can do is enforce the requirements for cyclists who wish to represent the country as professionals or amateurs at IOC and UCI sanctioned events. That is all.

 

PPA's events fall outside of that ambit.

Events like Sani2C, Joburg2C etc are private events that can choose to be run with the sanctioing of CSA or not. There are advantages to attracting international competitors to events if it is CSA sanctioned (and therefore UCI and IOC sanctioned) but PPA that holds no advantage. International pro's cannot be prevented from participating in a fun event. All their contract can stipulate is that if they do, their employer will not cover their personal and medical insurance. They would need to have their own medical insurance.

 

You can distill the CSA trying to force all cycling bodies to fall in line with their constitution as similar to the ANC trying to nationalise all SA's assets...

Its the same thing and a really *** idea

Edited February 18, 2014 by GoLefty!!

[BradleydT]

I watched supercycling and last week and Andrew Mclean did not look very impressed with outcome... but this is typical...

 

Bottom line is that the funriders outweighs the league cyclists and are the people who keep the associations afloat.

 

PPA recognises this and maintains to offer events which includes caters for the cyclists just wanting to have fun.

 

Cycling should be enjoyable and made as simple as possible and the only organisation working toward this is PPA.

 

Well done boys and girls.... because of you I enjoy every event

[walkerr]

Everyone jumping on the bandwagon should take some time to research both organisations a bit first. When this court case first started I was in the "CSA is all evil, PPA is all good camp too". A number of people on here jumped all over me, and rightly so. I looked into it more, and found out that as with everything no issue is 100% black and white. Both parties to this have both good and bad sides to them. I actually cancelled my PPA membership on the back of what I learned about them through that process. The Argus and some of what they do is awesome, but don't believe for a moment that they are some angel here and the CSA is the devil.

Edited February 25, 2014 by walkerr

[Steven D Williams]

The way the judgement has gone is unfortunate in my opinion. The social riders / players in any sport across the world subsidise the professional riders / players. It helps facilitate the transition between starting out as a social rider / player. The amount of young riders / players who have the potential to become professional riders / players, but not the financial means, will suffer in the end. This will result in cycling becoming more of an "elitist" sport and stunt the growth of it in the long run. You may argue that you are happy with being a social rider and don't feel you should be footing the bill for the professionals, but in the end, it’s the professionals that give cycling the "airtime" and attract more people to cycling. This results in more trails, better maintained trails etc. In short, fewer professionals equals less cyclists, equals less money being pushed into cycling, equals less trails and poor maintenance of the trails. Just to be clear, I am a social rider.

[walkerr]

The way the judgement has gone is unfortunate in my opinion. The social riders / players in any sport across the world subsidise the professional riders / players. It helps facilitate the transition between starting out as a social rider / player. The amount of young riders / players who have the potential to become professional riders / players, but not the financial means, will suffer in the end. This will result in cycling becoming more of an "elitist" sport and stunt the growth of it in the long run. You may argue that you are happy with being a social rider and don't feel you should be footing the bill for the professionals, but in the end, it’s the professionals that give cycling the "airtime" and attract more people to cycling. This results in more trails, better maintained trails etc. In short, fewer professionals equals less cyclists, equals less money being pushed into cycling, equals less trails and poor maintenance of the trails. Just to be clear, I am a social rider.

 

As a social rider, totally agree. It's sad also that it's hard to argue that young talent gets all the support it could from the CSA either, and some of that could be said to be down to inefficient and squandered funding as well as lack of funding. But having a disjoint and broken up approach with squabbling over money that ends up in different pots, isn't really benefitting cycling as a whole - or the promising youth who could one day represent SA.

 

I've never understood why there can't be a seamless model - my club membership fees include an amount that goes to a provinicial body, which in turn goes to a national body. In that, I get my fun ride day license included, but if I want a racing license then for sure I have to buy that extra. Also if I don't belong to a club, charge me a temporary day license .

 

But the bickering mess we have now, regardless of which side is right and wrong, is not helping our sport overall

[GoLefty!!]

Everyone jumping on the bandwagon should take some time to research both organisations a bit first. When this court case first started I was in the "CSA is all evil, PPA is all good camp too". A number of people on here jumped all over me, and rightly so. I looked into it more, and found out that as with everything no issue is 100% black and white. Both parties to this have both good and bad sides to them. I actually cancelled my PPA membership on the back of what I learned about them through that process. The Argus and some of what they do is awesome, but don't believe for a moment that they are some angel here and the CSA is the devil.

 

 

valid point but one battle at a time please and then means, in this case, CSA is the evil. PPA could do a lot of things better but being forced by a convoluted interpretation of a law imposed on professional cycling in a country far far away has **** all do to with my social riding. From that perspective, appreciate PPA's autonomy.

 

Social riders are under no obligation to any pro or amateur rider in SA. CSA looks after you and that is it. If they cannot look after you then ask them why. Don't ask the social riders to come and bail you out.

 

There is room for two different bodies looking after different aspect of riding bicycles. Not everyone dreams of winning the tour de france their whole life.

[ccc2]

valid point but one battle at a time please and then means, in this case, CSA is the evil. PPA could do a lot of things better but being forced by a convoluted interpretation of a law imposed on professional cycling in a country far far away has **** all do to with my social riding. From that perspective, appreciate PPA's autonomy.

 

Social riders are under no obligation to any pro or amateur rider in SA. CSA looks after you and that is it. If they cannot look after you then ask them why. Don't ask the social riders to come and bail you out.

 

There is room for two different bodies looking after different aspect of riding bicycles. Not everyone dreams of winning the tour de france their whole life.

if u belong to ppa u aren't a social rider. events with results listing the fastest to slowest time is a race no matter how much smoke and mirrors the ppa blows over the event - its a race.

btw who represents the other social riders around the country?

[marko35s]

if u belong to ppa u aren't a social rider. events with results listing the fastest to slowest time is a race no matter how much smoke and mirrors the ppa blows over the event - its a race.

btw who represents the other social riders around the country?

Im in the PPA and complete their events with my 10 year old son, we have no intention of doing anything other than completing the course and having fun.

 

[GaryvdM]

valid point but one battle at a time please and then means, in this case, CSA is the evil. PPA could do a lot of things better but being forced by a convoluted interpretation of a law imposed on professional cycling in a country far far away has **** all do to with my social riding. From that perspective, appreciate PPA's autonomy.

 

Social riders are under no obligation to any pro or amateur rider in SA. CSA looks after you and that is it. If they cannot look after you then ask them why. Don't ask the social riders to come and bail you out.

 

There is room for two different bodies looking after different aspect of riding bicycles. Not everyone dreams of winning the tour de france their whole life.

 

You make it sound as if PPA = social, CSA = pro/amateur riding. But go look at the CSA constitution:

6. OBJECTS OF CYCLING S.A.

The objects of Cycling S.A are:

6.1. To be and to operate and function as the autonomous controlling and administrative

body of the sport of Cycling within the area of its jurisdiction in all forms of cycling

including but not limited to:-

6.1.1. Competitive Road Racing and Time Trialing;

6.1.2. Recreational Road Cycling, including the U.C.I. concept of “Cycling for all”, Mass

Participation which include timed and non-timed participation, Touring and Social

Riding.

6.1.3. Track cycling;

6.1.4. Competitive off-road Cycling including Cross Country Mountain Biking, Marathon and

Downhill Mountain Biking;

6.1.5. Recreational off-road Cycling including Cross Country Mountain Biking, Marathon and

Downhill mountain biking;

6.1.6. Every kind of BMX cycling;

6.1.7. Para-Cycling;

6.1.8. Commuting;

 

So to say that CSA has nothing to do with social riding is completely wrong. You may however argue that they are not doing enough for social riders. But since you are not a member of the CSA, what say do you have.

 

I hope I don't sound like I'm defending the CSA though. They probably could be doing a lot more all round. I just think your argument is based on an incorrect understanding.

Edited February 25, 2014 by GaryvdM

[GLuvsMtb]

 

You make it sound as if PPA = social, CSA = pro/amateur riding. But go look at the CSA constitution:

 

 

So to say that CSA has nothing to do with social riding is completely wrong. You may however argue that they are not doing enough for social riders. But since you are not a member of the CSA, what say do you have.

 

I hope I don't sound like I'm defending the CSA though. They probably could be doing a lot more all round. I just think your argument is based on an incorrect understanding.

I think the whole point is that CSA is not outcome driven at all. I'll gladly contribute if I see them VISIBLY promoting safe cycling, have a REAL development programme, assist with other disciplines like XC, DH and track cycling by doing more than getting a local body to host their national champs for them and have a transparent way to select riders that have to represent our country.

 

The way they and SASCOC snubbed Cherise Stander for selection to go to London2012 smells like politics getting in the way of a deseved selection to me.

[scotty]

I watched supercycling and last week and Andrew Mclean did not look very impressed with outcome... but this is typical...

 

Bottom line is that the funriders outweighs the league cyclists and are the people who keep the associations afloat.

 

PPA recognises this and maintains to offer events which includes caters for the cyclists just wanting to have fun.

 

Cycling should be enjoyable and made as simple as possible and the only organisation working toward this is PPA.

 

Well done boys and girls.... because of you I enjoy every event

 

Why does PPA not allow competition from other timing chips and only recognize Racetec

Why does PPA insist that any rider doing the Argus must have a Racetec chip.

Why do PPA hold back results of cyclist who are not PPA members.

[slabs]

Why does PPA not allow competition from other timing chips and only recognize Racetec

Why does PPA insist that any rider doing the Argus must have a Racetec chip.

Why do PPA hold back results of cyclist who are not PPA members.

 

Why will Newlands Cricket not sell Windhoek over the weekend? Etc...

 

PPA pay Racetec to time the events. Argus is a PPA event. PPA is an autonomous organisation that can make their own business decisions in the interest of their members. Wrongly or rightly, but that is life!

[GLuvsMtb]

Why does PPA not allow competition from other timing chips and only recognize Racetec

Why can't I buy Pepsi at Ster Kinekor or bring my own beverage in?

Why does PPA insist that any rider doing the Argus must have a Racetec chip. Because when you are not home by 7 and your wife phones them in a panic, they can tell her that you passed the mats at Smitswinkel, but have not passed the mats at Chappies. She then knows to get in her car and pick you up at the Toad and Village in Noordhoek. Best she brings a friend as well to drive your car home for you as well.

Why do PPA hold back results of cyclist who are not PPA members

I'm with you on this one. Simply run a separate list in the results to indicate results for non-PPA members who wore a timing chip. This would not assist with seeding etc as you need to be a member to get seeded, but makes claiming Discovery vitality points etc easier.