Shebeen Posted February 20, 2015 Share In light of this, I am applying to be reseeded into the Elite group. Suddenly not having a CSA licence is paying off, and I stand a chance of winning the Argus in probably the slowest winning time ever. Fame & glory, podium girls, helicopter flights and the cover of Bicycling magazine await!what's the Argust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted February 20, 2015 Share In light of this, I am applying to be reseeded into the Elite group. Suddenly not having a CSA licence is paying off, and I stand a chance of winning the Argus in probably the slowest winning time ever. Fame & glory, podium girls, helicopter flights and the cover of Bicycling magazine await!Damn and here I am training for the Two Oceans, this could have been my year. Oh well you can take, although not sure about the Fame & Glory, chicks, helicopters etc... perhaps some JC le Roux and a lifetime supply of that sub three kit with the big clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gypsy Posted February 20, 2015 Share I have been a licensed rider for many years and am divided on the debacle. Never used it much but renewed every year, as with my PPA membership. I have aspirations to one day get seriously fit, ride some VET events internationally and quite frankly I can do without the bad records created through penalties imposed by the UCI. I see CSA's point and I see the PPA's side of the story. I have had heated dealings with the UCI and CSA on many occassions.  The UCI is a stickler and CSA are forced to comply to their international standards. PPA can upstage CSA but not UCI. For the CTCT to grow exponentionally PPA/CTCT need the UCI behind them. CSA is answerable to the UCI. As I see it,  CSA is only the messenger. Should the UCI not bend on this ruling and you wish to have an international cycle career after CTCT be wary if they impose penalties as it stays on your record forever. This will affect future sponsorships, team selection etc. Teams and sponsors do not like cyclists with records. As I currently see it PPA/CTCT need to  sort this mess out as their supposed victory is turning into a nightmare. A particular saying might suffice. "PPA won the war but lost the battle" PPA are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the might of the UCI. They could find themselves isolated from the international cycling community and that quite frankly benefits nobody.  CSA could alternatively sanction only the rider and not the race. Bill each rider R6-00. I would be happy to pay that or even more for peace of mind. Of course the UCI is concerned that PPA's court victory might create a worldwide precedent and that other events might opt for a similar stance, thus depriving UCI and other cycling unions from much needed income. Nevertheless, all i care about is that the First CTCT complies to all international laws governing cycling. We all want it to be success - except PPA and CSA.  Whereto from now lies in the powers that be, although at this stage they seem to be a bunch of weaklings.  So sad when a bunch of so called educated concerns put their internal politics and aspirations above the greater good for all.  Skubarra, Bat, TALUS and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDF Posted February 20, 2015 Share   CSA could alternatively sanction only the rider and not the race. Bill each rider R6-00. I would be happy to pay that or even more for peace of mind.  This is unfortunately not an alternative. They cannot sanction a rider but not the event. The R6 per rider is supposed to be used to pay for their officials to be in attendance as well as "vetting" safety and other aspects of the race. There is quite a shopping list of requirements that are supposed to be met in order to obtain the sanction as well - like ablution facilities and other things one normally expects at a race. Edited February 20, 2015 by BDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velouria Posted February 20, 2015 Share what's the Argust?The Argust in March is bicycle race that caters for people who own bikes but don't necessarily ride them all that often. It's the one day of the year when it is acceptable for people of all shapes and sizes to squeeze into lycra, don Top Sport helmets, and endlessly wrestle with toe clips. It also provides non cycling Capetonians with an excuse to get up early, set up a picnic on the side of the road, and consume copious amounts of champagne and breakfast wine just after sunrise. Most importantly, it's the one day of the year when the mythical Noordhoek flasher can be spotted in her natural surroundings... Wannabe, Shebeen, Cargyrl and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieV Posted February 20, 2015 Share I have a full license too .... I had entered the Tour de PPA  taking place on the 22nd of Feb 2015 prior to PPA/CSA issue. I had the idea of using the Tour de PPA race as a last fast training ride before the Tour de Boland. I sadly now have to forfeit this weekends race, just in case I get banned from riding the Tour de Boland. All I want to do is ride .....   this issue is terribly demotivating ... please guys, help us cyclist enjoy the sport without all the politics. Danger Dassie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wannabe Posted February 20, 2015 Share She's not a myth, I saw her with my own sweat filled and bloodshot eyes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicky DQ Posted February 20, 2015 Share CSA is answerable to the UCI. As I see it,  CSA is only the messenger. Should the UCI not bend on this ruling and you wish to have an international cycle career after CTCT be wary if they impose penalties as it stays on your record forever. This will affect future sponsorships, team selection etc. Teams and sponsors do not like cyclists with records. Not Quite CSA could allow this to happen, they just choose to be difficult. Ultimately CSA will loose, It is a 1 month ban or 50-100 CFH fine.  If they do ban say 90% of thier membership what then. Also are there many UCI races in the next month bar the Absa Cape Epic. Also what about all the other MTB races such as Gravel and Grape, J2C, Tankwa Trek, Trans Karoo, Hell and Back, Trans Baviaans, 100Miler to name a few. If CSA forces the riders hand they are going to have to be consistent throughout or they are going to have serious litigation issues for being predigest. Me thinks they have once again bitten off more than they can chew. GoLefty!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted February 20, 2015 Share  Most importantly, it's the one day of the year when the mythical Noordhoek flasher can be spotted in her his natural surroundings...dont believe everything you see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicky DQ Posted February 20, 2015 Share Having read this whole thread I think I must have missed something. The way I understand it, it boils down to PPA paying CSA 210,000 rand? (6 rand x 35 000 riders) The additional day licenses are paid directly by the affected cyclist, collected by CTCT on behalf of CSA? So unless I am oversimplifying this, this looks like it's more about the history between these two organisations with PPA losing its status within CSA than about the actual money to get the event sanctioned. As sanctioning would cost 2.6% of the total revenue and by the look of their finances PPA can afford this no problem. Someone please tell me am wrong about this. For me losing the front of the field is a loss and takes away from the staus of the event. Looks like PPA trying to cut off its nose the spite its face. (Apologies for the cliche) At the end of the day cycling suffers and for an organisation that claim to have the interests of cyclists at its core, think they need to be the bigger person in this case.As I mentioned earlier I believe it is the other way around. The size and momentum of the CTCT is now such that with or without the pros the ride will continue. The funriders do not ride to compete with the pros, they ride to compete with themselves and their mates.  The vast majority just want to have fun, so who really cares about CSA in this instance. GoLefty!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDF Posted February 20, 2015 Share I have a full license too .... I had entered the Tour de PPA  taking place on the 22nd of Feb 2015 prior to PPA/CSA issue. I had the idea of using the Tour de PPA race as a last fast training ride before the Tour de Boland. I sadly now have to forfeit this weekends race, just in case I get banned from riding the Tour de Boland. All I want to do is ride .....   this issue is terribly demotivating ... please guys, help us cyclist enjoy the sport without all the politics.My sentiments too. For the CTCT to be overshadowed by all this controversy is frankly a huge steaming pile of poo. I also agree with Gypsy in that PPA have a bit of a hollow victory. Win the court case but screw the cyclists! CSA, who are affiliated to UCI must stick to the directives issued by the UCI, as do all international cycling bodies that are affiliated to the UCI. The unfortunate timing of this particular move have magnified the issue and left little time to resolve. I think PPA sat back and smiled after their court victory but never factored in the risks properly. Had they just sought sanction by CSA, no-one would have cared about the announcement and life would move on (to the extent that PPA had their other races sanctioned too) but sadly, money and not cycling or cyclists appears to have been the motivation. PPA have been way too quiet about this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skubarra Posted February 20, 2015 Share She's not a myth, I saw her with my own sweat filled and bloodshot eyes!! Unfortunately what has been seen can never be unseen.... Wannabe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gypsy Posted February 20, 2015 Share Not Quite CSA could allow this to happen, they just choose to be difficult. Ultimately CSA will loose, It is a 1 month ban or 50-100 CFH fine.  If they do ban say 90% of thier membership what then. Also are there many UCI races in the next month bar the Absa Cape Epic. Also what about all the other MTB races such as Gravel and Grape, J2C, Tankwa Trek, Trans Karoo, Hell and Back, Trans Baviaans, 100Miler to name a few. If CSA forces the riders hand they are going to have to be consistent throughout or they are going to have serious litigation issues for being predigest. Me thinks they have once again bitten off more than they can chew.  Not Quite CSA could allow this to happen, they just choose to be difficult. Ultimately CSA will loose, It is a 1 month ban or 50-100 CFH fine.  If they do ban say 90% of thier membership what then. Also are there many UCI races in the next month bar the Absa Cape Epic. Also what about all the other MTB races such as Gravel and Grape, J2C, Tankwa Trek, Trans Karoo, Hell and Back, Trans Baviaans, 100Miler to name a few. If CSA forces the riders hand they are going to have to be consistent throughout or they are going to have serious litigation issues for being predigest. Me thinks they have once again bitten off more than they can chew.  Edited February 20, 2015 by gypsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gypsy Posted February 20, 2015 Share   Edited February 20, 2015 by gypsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted February 20, 2015 Share It's a global issue, many national federations are having issues with this. USAC apparently are not going ahead with the rule currently. The problem is more how CSA are putting this out there, it should have been managed better with the UCI. Especially considering the uniqueness of the South African cycling scene.  Unfortunately whilst the powers that be argue and play the blame games, the riders are the ones paying the price. Wether it's 300 or 30 000 is besides the point. Penalising amateur riders holding a full license is stupid and heavy handed, whichever way you look at it.It's a backward application of a draconian rule. CSA might be obligated to UCI, like other national federations, but are not bound by them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90 Inch Posted February 20, 2015 Share CSA is being selective in applying this ruling. Many events are held without being placed on the calendar (so they don't pay the event and rider fees to CSA). As an example there is regular Track racing with CSA officials at HNP , KZN and Bellville. Most of the riders will have full racing licences, yet these events are not on CSA's calendar so not sanctioned. CSA is not interested in then due to the low numbers, follow the money, the only reason they are targeting the Argus (CTCT) is due to the large field ie large fees. If UCI was behind this it would be big news else ware, and while I don't doubt that CSA have a letter from the UCI, I suspect CSA may have asked for the letter based on the timing and the fact that the tension started before the date of this UCI instruction.       Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts