Jump to content

Argus (aka CTCT) 2016 Medical Questionnaire


walkerr

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is the response I got from them:

 

"Good day Barry,

 

I trust my email finds you well!

 

Are you connecting to the internet from a Vodacom ISP? If so, please try to access the link from a non-Vodacom ISP. We have been notified that Vodacom ISP’s are experiencing difficulties connecting to the site as their DNS settings are not correct. We unfortunately have no control over this. We apologise for the inconvenience.

 

If you are not connected Via Vodacom and you are still experiencing issues, please let us know exactly what the issue is.

 

Regards"

 

Tried it, still not working.

 

Well done CTCT management, real professional organizing.

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Can any of the legal eagles help out. How can it become a prerequisite?

I think we all should ask for payment for the time it took us to fill out this. For professional time should be paid at say R1000 per hour so if it took 15min (if you were lucky) the CTCT should pay back you R250.00.

Posted

Ok I have a few minutes. Firstly I am ashamed to see UP being involved with this. I went through this and can find nothing that will directly influence the planning for medical resources on the day. I see a typical questionaire that is used to make up numbers so that a "study" can be published. Often these "studies" then becomes benchmarks merely due to the numbers involved. By filling this in we are indirectly becoming part of medical fraud.

 

It clearly stems from a relationship between the "researchers" and PPA. It is a cheap shot to involve questions about training surfaces, psychiatric diseases, previous accidents and so forth , and telling us it is for our own good. IT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!

 

This is a scam and an insult. I have paid too much money to risk anything so I will fill it in with the sole aim of getting it done. This leads to corrupt data. How is this good for anyone?

 

Any selfrespecting researcher will make participation optional IN THE BEGINNING!

 

Also it must be made clear that "the medical team" is not defined at all and as such you are NOT guaranteed that your data - wich is NOT anonymous- will not leak out. The admin person that wades through all the data may be very interested to hear about your depression and is likely to bring it up at the next braai. 

 

This is a bad show and the strongarm tactics is deplorable.

Posted

Who is the researcher involved here? What institute? Shouldn't participation be voluntary and include the right to opt out at any point? I do not see this as either legal or ethical. FFS.

Posted

This is almost as big a farce as axing nene.

 

Only thing missing from the south African joke is santa claus delivering origami toys due to the rand being too weak for sa kids to get decent toys for Xmas

 

Fu ctct

Posted

this is looking to explode.. I wonder how the international participants feel about this ?

 

 

the rand has taken a solid rogering with no vas since this questionnaire came out.

Posted

I haven't done a CTCT since it was called the Argus .... (2006 was my last ).

Boy am I glad I haven't enterd this one .

CTCT clearly don't know how badly they have annoyed thier own clients .

 

Bad marketing here .

Posted

I haven't done a CTCT since it was called the Argus .... (2006 was my last ).

Boy am I glad I haven't enterd this one .

CTCT clearly don't know how badly they have annoyed thier own clients .

 

Bad marketing here .

 

I am guessing that with this type of attitude, plus the rising costs of travel accommodation etc. the 94.7 will soon be SA's biggest cycle race. Keep in mind that the majority of people that participate in the CTCT are not from Cape Town so have to travel there at a cost, while the majority of people that ride the 94.7 are from Gauteng.

 

"Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive."

Posted

My days are hectic at the moment but I guarantee that I will get hold of the ethical clearance next year and I hope that someone from PPA or the "research unit" reads this:

 

I abhor being pushed around as if I have no say in a matter. If I find any deviation or misrepresentation in how this played out, you can expect a call from the medical council. This includes the Race Medical Director that will have to show how it benefitted him/her as well as the Medical Director of the sponsor. If you want to play the medical benefit card you better show more than a publication that someone can use on his CV. And be ready to show how each question was relevant (eg. psychiatric disease, previous crashes, training surfaces etc.)

 

Some of the most obvious questions was never asked: Do ever train in heat? Do you train at altitude? Do you use anabolic steroids (many men do). etc

Posted

My days are hectic at the moment but I guarantee that I will get hold of the ethical clearance next year and I hope that someone from PPA or the "research unit" reads this:

 

I abhor being pushed around as if I have no say in a matter. If I find any deviation or misrepresentation in how this played out, you can expect a call from the medical council. This includes the Race Medical Director that will have to show how it benefitted him/her as well as the Medical Director of the sponsor. If you want to play the medical benefit card you better show more than a publication that someone can use on his CV. And be ready to show how each question was relevant (eg. psychiatric disease, previous crashes, training surfaces etc.)

 

Some of the most obvious questions was never asked: Do ever train in heat? Do you train at altitude? Do you use anabolic steroids (many men do). etc

Thank you. I had the same thought in mind, to find out which body has given clearance that this research meets it's standard for ethics. And who might be supervising this research. Because honestly, every bit of the design is flawed and even if people don't fool around with their answers, I can't see how to analyse responses in any meaningful way since questions weren't thought out properly!! Pfffft.
Posted

Ok I have a few minutes. Firstly I am ashamed to see UP being involved with this. I went through this and can find nothing that will directly influence the planning for medical resources on the day. I see a typical questionaire that is used to make up numbers so that a "study" can be published. Often these "studies" then becomes benchmarks merely due to the numbers involved. By filling this in we are indirectly becoming part of medical fraud.

 

It clearly stems from a relationship between the "researchers" and PPA. It is a cheap shot to involve questions about training surfaces, psychiatric diseases, previous accidents and so forth , and telling us it is for our own good. IT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!

 

This is a scam and an insult. I have paid too much money to risk anything so I will fill it in with the sole aim of getting it done. This leads to corrupt data. How is this good for anyone?

 

Any selfrespecting researcher will make participation optional IN THE BEGINNING!

 

Also it must be made clear that "the medical team" is not defined at all and as such you are NOT guaranteed that your data - wich is NOT anonymous- will not leak out. The admin person that wades through all the data may be very interested to hear about your depression and is likely to bring it up at the next braai.

 

This is a bad show and the strongarm tactics is deplorable.

I await with some curiosity to hear of your creativeness... my quintuple bypass and ms in conjunction with my frontal lobotomy and electro shock therapy will make me an interesting cases study...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout