Cape Town Cycle Tour and the CSA Forbidden Races Rule

[zaslinger]

Armstrong rode in few years ago and he rode in TDF in same year, How come??

 

Special case - He also doped & won 7 TdF 

[eddy]

Armstrong rode in few years ago and he rode in TDF in same year, How come??

 

And look how well that turned out for him.......

[Shebeen]

Armstrong rode in few years ago and he rode in TDF in same year, How come??

no he didn't.

 

according to racetec he didn't finish the 2010 event.

 

http://results.cycletour.co.za/results_by_event.aspx?RID=2010&SID=1&EN=Sun%2014%2F03%2F2010%20Cape%20Argus%20Pick%20n%20Pay%20Cycle%20Tour%20%28110km%29

[carbon29er]

What exactly do CSA and PPA actually do?

I can't speak for CSA but PPA, as can be seen from their website, actively promote cycling in all it's forms but specifically through funrides, project finance to worthwhile cycling projects (ironically including some CSA events) and their biggest budget item is the Safe Cycling campaign rolled out nationally as Stay wider of the rider #staywider

 

And together with one of the Rotary branches in Cape Town they own the Cape Town Cycle Tour which is organised and run by the Cape Town Cycle Tour Trust to raise funds for charity.

[carbon29er]

There is more to this than the UCI not sanctioning the event.

 

It has to do with affiliation and licensing from my limited understanding. 

 

CSA vs CTCT/Belliars

CSA wants CTCT to apply for sanctioning of the event which will mean that the CTCT will have to pay day licence fees for every rider who does not have a CSA licence at R35 AND a race fee which R6 or R10.

 

Do the maths.

 

PPA took CSA to court over this issue and the judge found for the PPA that, broadly, CSA could not force event organisers to apply for sanctioning and therefor have to pay these fees to CSA.

[DJR]

I understood that CSA agreed to sanction the "racing" part of the Cape Town Cycle Tour and leave the rest of it, the "fun ride" part, alone. Have they gone back on that agreement? What has changed? Did they decide to not make an exemption? The UCI rules clearly allow for an exemption. Would be a bit cheeky on CSAs' part if they did that to spite the PPA, while PPA funds some of the CSA / Western Province Cycling events and clubs. Sanction or no sanction, I don't think it will hurt the Argus one little bit, It truly is a mass participation event, and not dependant on who the front 50 riders are for its success. Still, it is nice to have a few big names up front there! 

[LeTurbo]

So, if the UCI isn't interested in the CTCT, the top riders can dope themselves to the eyeballs and everything will be fine. Hell, I can dope myself more than they do, and then I'll be famous!

[AndreR]

My understanding is that the UCI suspended the implementation of rule 1.2.019 for the 2013 season and again in Feb 2014 for the 2014 season after encountering strong opposition in the USA. I haven't seen a further postponement for 2015 yet, but there was also no announcement by the UCI that they are revoking the suspension - which btw is for all affiliates and not just the USA. See the attached velo news article - there was also a subsequent Feb 6,2014 announcement by UCI covering 2014.

 

UCI postpones rule barring riders from unsanctioned races, and USA Cycling follows suit

By Daniel McMahon

Published Apr. 11, 2013

Updated Nov. 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM EST

Share250 Tweet32

0 0

The International Cycling Union (UCI) said Thursday that it had decided to postpone enforcing rule 1.2.019, a controversial regulation that bars UCI license-holders from participating in unsanctioned races.

 

Reversing course from late last week, the UCI, cycling’s global governing body, said that it would not strictly enforce the rule in 2013.

 

“The UCI listened to the feedback from the various groups involved and who feel affected by a strict and immediate enforcement of rule 1.2.019 and its associated sanctions,” the UCI wrote on its website. “The UCI has decided to postpone strict enforcement of rule 1.2.019 in 2013 with the expectation that all stakeholders (national federations, race directors, teams, and riders) will discuss and do what is necessary to prepare for the rule’s full enforcement in 2014.”

 

USA Cycling said that it would follow suit.

 

“Notwithstanding the fact that rule 1.2.019 has been enforced in Europe for many years, it is clear strict enforcement in the U.S. and other countries will have unintended and undesirable consequences,” said Steve Johnson, USAC president and CEO, in a statement.

 

“USA Cycling listened to the views expressed by the cycling community in America, and these issues were fully represented in discussions with the UCI,” Johnson said. “We would like to thank the UCI for its willingness to suspend enforcement of the rule globally to allow time for productive dialogue with all stakeholders to find a workable solution for the future.”

 

As VeloNews has reported over the past several months, a tide of fierce backlash from riders, race promoters, and fans had grown since USAC announced that it would work to apply the long-overlooked rule from the sport’s global governing body. Rule 1.2.019, which essentially states that licensed riders cannot compete in events that are not sponsored by either the UCI or USA Cycling, is not new. USA Cycling, however, has only strictly enforced it the past three years. USA Cycling had used the UCI’s new-found interest in the rule to influence, for example, the independent, Colorado-based American Cycling Association to re-join USAC in 2011.

 

And as VeloNews reported in December, USAC told a number of parties in 2012 that participation by professional riders in Oregon Bicycle Racing Association events and unsanctioned mountain bike races such as the Breck Epic would be met with a penalty going forward.

 

All along, USA Cycling claimed that it had been caught in UCI crossfire and was simply enforcing a rule as it is required to do. VeloNews published a full report on the rule last week, including a letter from UCI president Pat McQuaid to Johnson and other federation presidents, which outlined the UCI’s enforcement of the rule and its application to professional and amateur riders.

 

“The objective of this regulation is to protect the hard work and resources you pour into the development of your events at national level,” McQuaid wrote. “It allows for a federative structure, something which is inherent in organized sport and which is essential to being a part of the Olympic movement.”

 

Examples of unlicensed races in which UCI-licensed riders have participated include the Teva Mountain Games, a multi-sport event in Vail, Colo., that combines bike racing, kayaking, rock climbing, and trail running. Tom Danielson (Garmin-Sharp) and Georgia Gould (Luna Chix) both competed in the event last year, which resulted in USA Cycling informing them that they were in violation of rule 1.2.019.

 

In recent days, athletes including Olympian Jeremy Horgan-Kobelski (Trek) and Ryan Trebon (Cannondale), as well as the Sho-Air-Cannondale team of Jeremiah Bishop and Pua Mata have spoken out against the rule.

[AndreR]

 

Colorado Springs, Colo. (Feb. 6, 2014) -- At their meeting last week in Hoogerheide, Netherlands, the UCI Management Committee discussed the issues surrounding Rule 1.2.019 and agreed to suspend enforcement of the rule for the remainder of the 2014 season.

"Although we would have liked to see a concrete resolution regarding Rule 1.2.019, we are nonetheless encouraged that there will be continuing dialogue regarding the worldwide ramifications of the rule in the coming year," said USA Cycling President & CEO Steve Johnson. "In the meantime, we are pleased that enforcement of the rule will be suspended for another year."

UCI general regulations include a section called "Forbidden Races." Within it, Rule 1.2.019 states, "No license holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognized by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI." Related rules 1.2.020 and 1.2.021 provide additional details, including specifying punishment via fine or suspension for all UCI license holders who violate the rule.

[dev null]

So, if my son joins CSA to get a licence to ride the XCO series events, he would not be allowed to ride the CTCT as a normal fun rider?

[carbon29er]

So, if my son joins CSA to get a licence to ride the XCO series events, he would not be allowed to ride the CTCT as a normal fun rider?

He would be allowed to ride if he enters and turns up with his chip and helmet but he risks being suspended by CSA for 30 days and fines SWF50 to SWF100...

[carbon29er]

I understood that CSA agreed to sanction the "racing" part of the Cape Town Cycle Tour and leave the rest of it, the "fun ride" part, alone. Have they gone back on that agreement? What has changed? Did they decide to not make an exemption?

Exactly as stated.

[dev null]

He would be allowed to ride if he enters and turns up with his chip and helmet but he risks being suspended by CSA for 30 days and fines SWF50 to SWF100...

 

 

This is nuts.  It is not as if he will even be in contention for a top 100 position.  He is just enjoying the day out on a bike with his dad.

[Tumbleweed]

So, if my son joins CSA to get a licence to ride the XCO series events, he would not be allowed to ride the CTCT as a normal fun rider?

 

Is a CSA licence the same as a UCI licence?

[carbon29er]

Is a CSA licence the same as a UCI licence?

Yes, all licences are issued by the local affiliated body.

 

Which is why USADA was able to get one baller, he argued UCI had jurisdiction but USADA won as licence was issued by USA Cycling which fell under USADA jurisdiction,

[Tumbleweed]

Yes, all licences are issued by the local affiliated body.

 

Which is why USADA was able to get one baller, he argued UCI had jurisdiction but USADA won as licence was issued by USA Cycling which fell under USADA jurisdiction,

 

Ah, okay, my bad.

 

Domestic Racing License:

This category of license is for riders from the age of 17-years-old who wish to be eligible for provincial and national selection and respective colours award. The bearer of a full license is entitled to partake in national championships or series races and be seeded accordingly. Those of who race in the UCI categories (Junior, U23 and Elite) earn UCI points, which will assist them in being seeded at future UCI category events, world cups and championships.

The cost of a full racing license is an additional R350 per year, and can only be bought once you have CSA membership. The applicant has to be member of an affiliated club, as well as be a registered member of Cycling SA (Have an active CSA Membership). These can be done simultaneously on the CYCLING SA Member Management System. A license card will be issued and posted to you. (Please ensure that your postal address details are correct on your profile).

There are no Youth Racing Licenses. All riders over the age of 16 require a domestic racing license should they wish to compete in Nationals, UCI events or get National Colours. Youth riders (U16) are only required to become members and will receive all the benefits of a Domestic Racing License.