Cape Town Cycle Tour and the CSA Forbidden Races Rule

[DJR]

................I wonder how many riders with CSA licences will ride the PPA event this weekend - I will not!

It is your right to choose whether to ride or not. If you choose not to, that is fine.

 

How about the rights of someone who chooses to ride? And then get punished for it? For doing something that is perfectly legal, will not harm anyone, in support of charities! What about his freedom of choice?

 

This makes CSA and UCI look like overgrown schoolyard bullies to me. I don't like bullies. I stand up to them.

[Icycling]

It is your right to choose whether to ride or not. If you choose not to, that is fine.

 

How about the rights of someone who chooses to ride? And then get punished for it? For doing something that is perfectly legal, will not harm anyone, in support of charities! What about his freedom of choice?

 

This makes CSA and UCI look like overgrown schoolyard bullies to me. I don't like bullies. I stand up to them.

Its your right to use cough syrup from your local super market, to non sports persons is perfectly legal, but if it has a ban substance in it and your are given a dope test which turns out to be positive you will also face sanctions as the UCI / CSA have rules for doping.

 

Similarly the UCI / CSA have rules for the licensed riders as to what races they can compete in. When you took out a licence you gave up certain freedoms of choose! If PPA were looking out for all their members they would have all their events sanctioned. Which in turn would make all their events for argument sake subject to door testing - would this not also be a good thing?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Apparently listening is more important than speaking.

Hahahahahaha! You may be on to something there.

[Icycling]

Agreed. Even if it is a UCI rule, to me it sounds unconstitutional in South Africa. I believe that it is against my internationally accepted human right to freedom of association.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and for fools to follow!!

 

The judge ruled in favor of PPA - that was a ruling.

 

Is PPA really acting on behalf of all it’s member by not acting wisely and saying, well yes by the court ruling we don’t need our events to be sanctioned by CSA, but would it not be rather wise while acting on behalf on all PPA members, that PPA should have all their events sanctioned by CSA? Possibly PPA does not wish to act on behalf of all it’s member and is choosing the hard stubborn line which may in turn end up been rather foolish!

 

Without CSA - their will possibly be no dope control at the Cape Town cycle tour. So whoever win and claim the prize purse may well be doing it while using performance enhancing substances - is this really how we want the sport to be?

[City Cycling Athletic Club]

from sanctioning all the way to allowing juveniles to ride distances which are contrary to their health on open gears, ppa are at fault and won't take advice.

was the marshal / lead car brought to book for their errors at the stellenbosch event?

the 99'er was another non sanctioned event they also told the csa they wont be sanctioning but asked for officials to be present for their racing bunch. where were the bike marshals,organisers when some of the bunches merged to become downright dangerous for ALL road users. it was a free for all and we were left to our own devices.

[Icycling]

I trust this is up to date as I have taken it directly from the PPA website - under PPA Constitution:

"3. OBJECTS AND POWERS

The association shall have full powers to carry out it’s main and ancillary objects and purposes.  The powers of the association shall be exercised by the committee constituted in terms of clause 4 below save to the extent that they are exercised by the members in general meeting.

The main purpose and object of the association is to promote cycling and the interests of cyclists.  Without limiting the generality of the aforegoing, the association shall have the following ancillary objectives:

(a) to be a representative body for the furtherance of the interests of cyclists;
(b) to promote cycling as a recreational activity, a sport and as a means of transportation;
© to improve conditions for cyclists with particular regard to their safety;
(d) to arrange and organise cycle tours, fun rides and outings;
(e) to co-ordinate cycle tours, fun rides and outings organised by other bodies and to assist them in their efforts;
(f) to establish contact and liaise with and where appropriate affiliate with other organisations having similar or alike interests and objectives."


Where from the above does it state they MAY NOT co-operate with CSA and the rule handed to them by the UCI? Are they acting in the best intrests of all their members and cyclist by not doing what a lot of other cycling events do in RSA and that is have their events sanctioned?

I actually read it as been part of their objective - why?

1. "The main purpose and object of the association is to promote cycling and the interests of cyclists” and "(a) to be a representative body for the furtherance of the interests of cyclists;” are they acting in the interests of their members and other cyclists who have CSA licences by not having their events sanctioned?

2. "© to improve conditions for cyclists with particular regard to their safety;” is it an improved conditions that certain of it’s members and other cyclist may no longer ride PPA events?

3.  "(f) to establish contact and liaise with and where appropriate affiliate with other organisations having similar or alike interests and objectives” it does not seem to be against their constitution to work with the likes of CSA?

[DJR]

from sanctioning all the way to allowing juveniles to ride distances which are contrary to their health on open gears, ppa are at fault and won't take advice.

was the marshal / lead car brought to book for their errors at the stellenbosch event?

the 99'er was another non sanctioned event they also told the csa they wont be sanctioning but asked for officials to be present for their racing bunch. where were the bike marshals,organisers when some of the bunches merged to become downright dangerous for ALL road users. it was a free for all and we were left to our own devices.

And these abominations NEVER EVER happened during all those years these PPA races WERE SANCTIONED by CSA? 

 

Or, a little more inconvenient, shall we mention the traffic mayhem during the CSA owned, sanctioned and organized Tour de South Africa? Remember, with motorists almost killing some of the peloton and a stage getting abandoned because of it.  Embarrassing that was. (Low blow, I know, but we were talking safety and marshalling, weren't we?).

[DJR]

........ it does not seem to be against their constitution to work with the likes of CSA?

Yes, I agree with you, some working together is sorely needed.

 

But from both sides, not just the PPA.

 

It also is well within the powers of CSA to make an exemption. It is provided for in the UCI rules. I have not seen any olive branch from their side either.  

[GLuvsMtb]

This is actually working out quite nicely. I have heard more people question the relevance and competence of CSA in the last week or so than in the 8 years proceeding this PR nightmare for CSA.

[Dicky DQ]

Nothing to question as the is no relevance or competence.

 

For 95% of the cycling populace. The other 5% that take umbrage don't ride the non sanctioned rides.

 

That will also pop CSA's bubble in thinking how many real members they have. The vast majority of people that have CSA membership/licences is as a result of most race organizers (PPA included) motivating participants to sign up or force them to purchase day licences. 

 

All this will be done and forgotten after CTCT, or it is going to be fun and games with most of the big popular races for the year.

[Icycling]

Yes, I agree with you, some working together is sorely needed.

 

But from both sides, not just the PPA.

 

It also is well within the powers of CSA to make an exemption. It is provided for in the UCI rules. I have not seen any olive branch from their side either.  

From Cyclingsa.com website and constitution -  did not read the whole constitution. I think a lot of what UCI has done recently is because Mr Mark Cavendish was meant to ride the Cape Town cycle tour - but I may well be wrong.

 

6.13.

To uphold and enforce the rules of Cycling as prescribed by the International Cycling

Union (UCI) from time to time and to encourage and promote the highest standard of

sporting

behaviour in connection with the practicing of Cycling.

6.14.

To uphold and enforce

any code of conduct pertaining to the sport of Cycling approved

by the International Cycling Union and/or any other code of conduct decided upon by

Cycling S.A..

6.15.

To recognise and accept the jurisdiction, rules and regulations of the South African

Institu

te for Drug

-

free Sport (“SAIDS”) as well as the code of the World Anti

-

Doping

Agency (“WADA”)

[GoLefty!!]

Your free to take drug also in cycling but if WADA / UCI / CSA find you positive you will face a ban. Some of these drug which will give you this 2 year ban you can find at your local Supermarket not even the drug store.

 

The UCI have rules - you cannot pick and choose which ones work for you - if you a member of their rules though CSA and you break their rules then face the consequences as set out in their rules!

 

The leadership of PPA and CSA are not handling this in the best interest of their members and hopefully somebody will open their eyes and see the light and that is the people they should be serving are just been used as pawns.

 

Something I have just posted of Facebook in another thread: "PPA won the battle but now are possibly loosing the war. They took CSA to court and won (it was an important issue to win) but now PPA is been pig headed and not looking out for the sport and quite a few of it's members. They digging their heels in over R6.00 per rider and thus probably killing a part of the goose that lays the golden egg for them i.e. the Cape Town Cycle tour.”

 

As a number of people have pointed out a lot of small sanctioned event with a lower entry quite happily pay the R6.00 per rider. Cycle tour trust / PPA want their own set of rules, but certain of it participants (which raise the status of the event) and its members are also governed by other rules - which PPA can subcribe to by having their events sanctioned. As I have have compared this to TAX - I as a Tax payer don’t feel I get good value for money from the government of the day - but I have yet to go on strike and not pay TAX!!!! I wonder if The Cycle Tour trust even pay VAT on their entries all do they feel they are that powerful?

 

CSA report to the UCI -(the world governing body for cycling) and SASCOC - CSA is basically the governments department for cycling in RSA - and they want their TAX like all government departments get! We as citizens of the country tend to pay it and regard it as a necessary evil (be it VAT, Fuel levies, sin tax, income tax / company tax etc) why should PPA feel they should not be part of the TAX pool and not pay their TAX to the necessary government department in this case CSA? Yes they can put on events without sanctioning - the court ruled on this - but the riders (the better ones and those who support most of their event not 1 here and there) now cannot ride these event because the rules they fall under does not permit this. So why PPA put on events of such a nature - rather put on events inline with what you claim to be (non racing) for example “Moon Light Mass” and that is not a race! That falls in your agenda - let these race you put on be controlled by the body that is recognised by National goverment or if you feel you can do a better job (I feel the same way) get them sanctioned with the cost associated to that!

 

I wonder how many riders with CSA licences will ride the PPA event this weekend - I will not!

 

 

Ok thats cool, we won't miss you cos I'm not riding my bike against you. I'm riding it to improve my fitness and have some fun with my tjommies without having to piss in a cup after all the USN I consumed during the event. That's how I roll these days. You see my chance of stardom on a UCI leel kinda disappeared a long time ago. The best I can hope for is doing well in Argust and maybe in some MTB stage races. But again there I'm not trying to mix it with CSA poepholle who think they're special because they have a different piece of paper.

 

You can repeat your rules over and over again and it still won't change that fact that PPA and CSA cater for very different groups of riders. The fact that CSA's riders want to ride the Argust is a testimony to how well run the CTCT is.

 

PPA accommodate those riders through a non discriminatory entry policy and has the foresight to group those characters together. Now CSA can't get its hand on PPA's banked money (you know mos I'm talking about the cash you claim CSA doesn't want or need but keep harping on about putting to better use......).

This is a bit like poor people saying they want the rich peoples money because they not using it and they can use it better.........sounds a bit communist to me.

 

But the big point you can't seem to digest is that we PPA members are not playing in your space for the CTCT. YOU ARE PLAYING IN OUR SPACE.

 

So if you want to play in our space then do so and give the finger to your organisation, or get that organisation to allow to come play with us. To e this hole thing is so typically apartheid and communist,......................exactly like the SACF was.....

 

I'm really surprised you subscribe to this mentality Pete......really surprised and quite frankly .................disppointed

[Icycling]

I'm really surprised you subscribe to this mentality Pete......really surprised and quite frankly .................disppointed

 

I am in the fortunate position where I can take it on the chin!!

 

I don’t race MTB ride including the ABSA Cape Epic - I can quite happy to take 1 month suspension and I can afford the fine. The problem is those who cannot - surely you fight for people less fortunate than yourself? Who should be disappointed in who?

[DJR]

The next time I ride a CSA sanctioned race, I'm going to demand they test me for dope afterwards!  

[carbon29er]

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and for fools to follow!!

 

The judge ruled in favor of PPA - that was a ruling.

 

Is PPA really acting on behalf of all it’s member by not acting wisely and saying, well yes by the court ruling we don’t need our events to be sanctioned by CSA, but would it not be rather wise while acting on behalf on all PPA members, that PPA should have all their events sanctioned by CSA? Possibly PPA does not wish to act on behalf of all it’s member and is choosing the hard stubborn line which may in turn end up been rather foolish!

 

Without CSA - their will possibly be no dope control at the Cape Town cycle tour. So whoever win and claim the prize purse may well be doing it while using performance enhancing substances - is this really how we want the sport to be?

Simple question:

 

What advantage is their to an event and to the funrider in having an event sanctioned by CSA?

 

Or in other words, what does CSA bring to an event by sanctioning it?

 

Edit: Grammar

[Icycling]

Simple question:

 

What advantage is their to an event is there to the funrider in having an event sanctioned by CSA?

 

Or in other words, what does CSA bring to an event by sanctioning it?

 

One answers (amongst many) to have a world champion race in the event like Mr Mark Cavendish adds value which cannot just be quantified by money / but also prestige and including international press for the city of Cape Town!