Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I know that. I also know that it could have been "legalised" by CSA for non-racing but lisence paying riders long ago.

There is no such thing as "non-racing but licence paying riders".

 

A licence is a FULL RACING LICENCE and riders enter their age category, i.e. VA, VB, VC, etc. Only the tjops that buy a licence to get an early start time are non-racing.

 

CSA Membership is for the paying rider you refer to, but it's not a "licence"... these are the open seeded, aka alphabet soup riders. Mass participants that fall under the UCI "Cycling for fun" category. Day licences are issued to cyclists that don't have a CSA Membership, and again is not a "licence".

 

It's only the "Full Racing Licencees" that are supposed to be subject to the UCI rules. The "Cycling for All" category has it's own set of rules, although many of their rules overlap with the UCI licence holders.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

There is no such thing as "non-racing but licence paying riders".

A licence is a FULL RACING LICENCE and riders enter their age category, i.e. VA, VB, VC, etc. Only the tjops that buy a licence to get an early start time are non-racing.

CSA Membership is for the paying rider you refer to, but it's not a "licence"... these are the open seeded, aka alphabet soup riders. Mass participants that fall under the UCI "Cycling for fun" category. Day licences are issued to cyclists that don't have a CSA Membership, and again is not a "licence".

It's only the "Full Racing Licencees" that are supposed to be subject to the UCI rules. The "Cycling for All" category has it's own set of rules, although many of their rules overlap with the UCI licence holders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thx for the clarification. What a meant to say is "paying for something but non-racing/non-prize winning/ bulk of income" cyclist.
Posted

There is no such thing as "non-racing but licence paying riders".

 

A licence is a FULL RACING LICENCE and riders enter their age category, i.e. VA, VB, VC, etc. Only the tjops that buy a licence to get an early start time are non-racing.

 

CSA Membership is for the paying rider you refer to, but it's not a "licence"... these are the open seeded, aka alphabet soup riders. Mass participants that fall under the UCI "Cycling for fun" category. Day licences are issued to cyclists that don't have a CSA Membership, and again is not a "licence".

 

It's only the "Full Racing Licencees" that are supposed to be subject to the UCI rules. The "Cycling for All" category has it's own set of rules, although many of their rules overlap with the UCI licence holders.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jip.

 

People get confused with "licenced" and "membership".

All schemes off coarse to milk us for money.   

 

In a perfect world.....

Professional athletes need to licence.  Their governing body looks after them and their interest. 

 

The rest of us then partake in events under a seeding system according to ability and get bragging rights winning your bunch.

Posted

Regardless of the difinition of riders memberships/license etc. This is all due to incompetence, it wasn't thought through.

 

Unless they get some competent people on board, this will never get better and this thread will become bigger than the "I have an idea....."

agreed

 

So what is the "working" solution?

And who is the correct person / body to implement this?

 

Create a "racing association" where all race organisers join together and create a body governing all based on UCI rules?

Posted

agreed

 

So what is the "working" solution?

And who is the correct person / body to implement this?

 

Create a "racing association" where all race organisers join together and create a body governing all based on UCI rules?

IF the politicians don't interfere. Maybe get PPA input as interim measure - at least they have proven ability to generate some money and organize races. Ex pros to guide development?
Posted

agreed

 

So what is the "working" solution?

And who is the correct person / body to implement this?

 

Create a "racing association" where all race organisers join together and create a body governing all based on UCI rules?

..... with competent people in place who are held accountable for their actions.
Posted

There is no such thing as "non-racing but licence paying riders".

 

A licence is a FULL RACING LICENCE and riders enter their age category, i.e. VA, VB, VC, etc. Only the tjops that buy a licence to get an early start time are non-racing.

 

CSA Membership is for the paying rider you refer to, but it's not a "licence"... these are the open seeded, aka alphabet soup riders. Mass participants that fall under the UCI "Cycling for fun" category. Day licences are issued to cyclists that don't have a CSA Membership, and again is not a "licence".

 

It's only the "Full Racing Licencees" that are supposed to be subject to the UCI rules. The "Cycling for All" category has it's own set of rules, although many of their rules overlap with the UCI licence holders.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cycling for all must also take out a day license.

Posted (edited)

IF the politicians don't interfere. Maybe get PPA input as interim measure - at least they have proven ability to generate some money and organize races. Ex pros to guide development?

With one Rob at PPA and the other at CSA and their well documented love for each other, I'm wondering if inter association synergy would improve?

 

I hope so, PPA and CSA both need each other more than they would like to admit.

Edited by Patchelicious
Posted

With one Rob at PPA and the other at CSA and their well documented love for each other, I'm wondering if inter association sysnergy might would improve?

 

I hope so, PPA and CSA both need each other more than they would like to admit.

You got some Pure Savage spelling going on there Patch!

Posted

With one Rob at PPA and the other at CSA and their well documented love for each other, I'm wondering if inter association sysnergy might would improve?

 

I hope so, PPA and CSA both need each other more than they would like to admit.

PPA needs CSA like we need our appendix.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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