WTF CSA?

[Tankman]

https://www.cyclingsa.com/mountain-bike-press/2018/6/27/non-sanctioned-cycling-events-participation  

 

 

Please note that if a qualified Cycling South Africa Commissaire is however present at the non-sanctioned event, they are posing as an official illegally and Cycling SA cannot be held liable for any post-race issues that may arise.

 

 

 

So if a CSA official is at an non-sanctioned event, he/she is there illegally ...

 

How do they legally hand out the fines, by phone? 

 

 

Isnt CSA saying in that statement that they cannot legally be present at a non-sanctioned event??

[Patchelicious]

Surely if there was a benefit for race organizers to have their races sanctioned, they would want to do it.

[Patchelicious]

Just so interesting to see that there are still cyclists that cannot figure out that unless events are sanctioned the local regions and CSA lose a very big part of their income stream. They will rather sit and bitch if CSA(or the region) cannot support our elite riders, and then bitch again when CSA try to get races sanctioned...

Good to know that CSA sees their members concerns as “bitching”.

[Shebeen]

Was plenty warning from CSA and K2C that the race was not sanctioned and licensed riders (but not CSA 'members') were not permitted under CSA rules to enter. No need to try blame K2C organizers. Like CTCT they have been open about this since they stopped being sanctioned. CSA lost the case against the PPA and that means no race organizer has to run their event under CSA rules, but CSA still makes out that they do. The only people directly affected by this are the licensed riders due to the UCI "forbidden events" rule. And we are not alone in SA with this battle.

Was there warnings in general or specifically for this event? Oom Google didn't show me any quickly

[DieselnDust]

Surely if there was a benefit for race organizers to have their races sanctioned, they would want to do it.

As mentioned in a previous post, sanctioned events can attract the licences category riders which gives an event credibility as a properly timed event. If not sanctioned then it’s a fun ride/church bazaar ride or whatever you want to call it.

 

The CTCT is a sanctioned event hence the licensed riders categories exist.

K2C decided that maintaining CSA sanctioning wasn’t how they wanted the event to grow. Being an official CTCT seeding event as an MTB ride was more valuable.

[Patchelicious]

As mentioned in a previous post, sanctioned events can attract the licences category riders which gives an event credibility as a properly timed event. If not sanctioned then it’s a fun ride/church bazaar ride or whatever you want to call it.

 

The CTCT is a sanctioned event hence the licensed riders categories exist.

K2C decided that maintaining CSA sanctioning wasn’t how they wanted the event to grow. Being an official CTCT seeding event as an MTB ride was more valuable.

Obviously “credibility” on its own is not enough, this is evident by people not getting their races sanctioned. There needs to be value in the transaction. If both parties do not get relevant value, it becomes parasitic and that’s not good for race organizers or CSA in the long run.

 

I must say it’s a little funny when we say that CSA will bring “credibility” to your event.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Patchelicious

[Patchelicious]

Was there warnings in general or specifically for this event? Oom Google didn't show me any quickly

To be honest, if you are a licensed rider the onus is on you to check, just like banned substances etc.

 

I’m pretty confident that most of those licensed riders knew they were riding an unsanctioned “ride”, as we now need to call it now apparently.

[Jewbacca]

This same topic pops up every year when one or other CSA licensed rider rides K2C or some other event and gets banned and/or fined.

 

I get that it is a ridiculous rule, but it is the rule.

 

It doesn't make non sanctioned races 'not races'. It just makes them non sanctioned.

 

CSA get no cut so will of course enforce their 'rules'. It comes down to finances and a wrestle for power.

 

meh

[DieselnDust]

Obviously “credibility” on its own is not enough, this is evident by people not getting their races sanctioned. There needs to be value in the transaction. If both parties do not get relevant value, it becomes parasitic and that’s not good for race organizers or CSA in the long run.

I must say it’s a little funny when we say that CSA will bring “credibility” to your event.

In many cases, especially in the road scene credibility is a big deal. Depends on what the organisers objectives are. CSA doesn't directly bring credibility but it does enable the local branches e.g. Wpcycling, with the tools to deliver good events that attract a strong field of competent licenced racers.

One can also host a credible fun ride outside of the CSA umbrella. E.g K2C.

 

The two streams are different with different objectives. Sometimes they flow together othertimes not. They are not mutually exclusive

[Patchelicious]

In many cases, especially in the road scene credibility is a big deal. Depends on what the organisers objectives are. CSA doesn't directly bring credibility but it does enable the local branches e.g. Wpcycling, with the tools to deliver good events that attract a strong field of competent licenced racers.

One can also host a credible fun ride outside of the CSA umbrella. E.g K2C.

 

The two streams are different with different objectives. Sometimes they flow together othertimes not. They are not mutually exclusive

I understand that it’s a big deal on road racing. You are missing my point though.

 

If there was value in the eyes of the organizers or license payers, they wouldn’t have a problem paying for it.

 

It’s this lack of value or perceived value that is the problem.

[Jewbacca]

I understand that it’s a big deal on road racing. You are missing my point though.

 

If there was value in the eyes of the organizers or license payers, they wouldn’t have a problem paying for it.

 

It’s this lack of value or perceived value that is the problem.

I think it comes down to who pays the bills?

 

Bog average mamils at a decent mtb race = 7000 ... top pro's and licensed semi pro's who sit on their top tubes = 200

 

For an established event that historically fills it's start chutes every year, why even bother giving part of your income to CSA?

[Patchelicious]

I think it comes down to who pays the bills?

 

Bog average mamils at a decent mtb race = 7000 ... top pro's and licensed semi pro's who sit on their top tubes = 200

 

For an established event that historically fills it's start chutes every year, why even bother giving part of your income to CSA?

 

Exactly. That why the threats come out....

[gogo@]

I have just been to their site And I cannot find anything that indicates that the race is not sanctioned.

You say they were open about it since thet stopped being sanctioned.

I doubt they send out a notice to say that they have made the decision not to sanction.

 

Something like please support our race and cause although we have decided we do not like CSA and will not support Cycling SA and the initiatives of CSA in our region to develop cycling.

Nothing wrong with that, but be open about it and accept that the numbers will be lower.

 

 

Yea , have to agree with Rolling Stone here.

I also haven’t seen plenty of warnings from K2C regarding the race not being sanctioned ?

I might have missed it though ??

 

 

Was there warnings in general or specifically for this event? Oom Google didn't show me any quickly

Simple really, when you did your entry it was clear that you didn't pay for a day license or need membership/racing license and that the event was not sanctioned by CSA.

And CSA put out statements on Facebook, email, maybe also their website.  Can't remember if this was 2015 or 16.  Someone can put me right on that.  Whichever year they decided to part ways with CSA.  After the PPA won the court case around the CTCT, so it was from then onwards.  This sent CSA into "forbidden rule" mode where they also started warning race organizers.

For K2C, they do this leading up to the event each year, especially getting closer.  One of my friends spotted it this year and sent it to me, including the bit about commissaires not being legal if they were spotted at the event (which I found very weird??)

 

One of the questions on K2C's old website FAQ section (they've redone it this year but probably still there) was whether you needed a CSA license or not.  Answer was no.  That is my memory.  Why/how would they keep this a secret???

 

PS - thought I'd just go check on the new website: clear as daylight.

[Andrew Steer]

Okay... some input on why events should on paper be sanctioned from my experience:

 

Events calendar: When you sanction an event, the events calendar is structured in such a way so as to avoid conflicts between major events in similar areas... having calendar conflicts is not good for anyone - riders have to chose between races and both events will lose numbers and income/exposure etc. Being on a nationally promoted calendar is also a positive. We used to have a full, well structured and very strong calendar in SA - it's a little more up in the air these days. We also had Mazda Drifter and MTN National series which really elevated the sport of mountain biking to what it is today. The road races also all had classifications (National classics etc) and at some points a national series etc which provided enough structure for professionals to earn a decent income year round. 

 

Safety: Believe it or not, there are a huge number of rules and regulations wrt staging an event in a safe manner - whenever you enter a race you are to some degree putting your life in the hands of strangers. A race commissaire ensures you don't get a double black section popping up in a kiddies race, that the finish chute isn't 2 meters wide for your road bunch to sprint into, that you don't have 13yr olds racing wrong distances etc, that routes are efficiently and properly marked etc, medics are in place, insurance is in place etc. There are some very good race commissaires out there who do a lot of good in educating race organisers and helping make everyones ride safer and more memorable.

 

Development: License fees from events also go into development, the current status quo may not allow it with CSA in serious debt, but there was a time not long ago when our top talents were supported and given the opportunities to grow into professionals. Burry Stander, Greg Minnaar, Robbie Hunter, Louis Meintjies etc have all over the years been sent to world champs, had flights paid for, had kit sponsored, had coaching, had guidance, had team managers by their sides in building their careers. Being a pro cyclist is not and easy life, every bit of support, every little opportunity helps in building a career. Even Willie Smit got his big break to Katusha after a year of CSA sending him to all sorts of tours in Africa to build his name and get UCI points etc. We need to get back to the point where CSA can again support our talents - sponsors, corporates etc will always come and go, the basic underlying structures always need to be there though for any sort of continuity. How much talent is slipping through the cracks right at this moment?

 

UCI points: How does a cyclist make a name for himself? How do we qualify riders for world championships etc? Through gathering UCI points. We had at times lots of locally available UCI points from sanctioned events who wanted to elevate their status even more so... there were opportunities for riders to make something of a name for themselves on the international stage without having to fly overseas to do so. Our nationals carry UCI points, to be a national champ provides a cyclist with massive leap in stature. Those nationals are organised by who? Provincials? Neither have big entry numbers, they don't attract crowds, or sponsors, they're run year after year at great cost to the national body. Where must that money come from?

 

There are many other things they have to control, rulings on riders taking shortcuts in the Cape Epic or getting outside assistance, riders pushing opponents off single track, dangerous sprinting etc... they are the rule book as such, and without rules you have anarchy.

Interesting point someone recently made to me... now that there's no money left in CSA, all the rats seem to have jumped the ship.

We all know CSA have stuffed up, do the guys trying to correct the ship not maybe need our support?

[Patchelicious]

 

We all know CSA have stuffed up, do the guys trying to correct the ship not maybe need our support?

 

Yes, but are the ones who stuffed it up still there?

[gogo@]

 

I am yet to see a race organiser that will openly publish the fact that their race is not sanctioned on their race info and entry portal. They will surely lose riders.

Sorry, I don't want to get in a bun fight over this but K2C and CTCT have both been very clear about not being sanctioned.  For other events that I follow, they usually post their CSA sanctioning certificate or have a CSA logo on their event page/website.  Then when you do your entry, it's pretty clear to see whether you have to have a license/buy a day license.

You are trying to do something positive for cycling.  Rather keep your focus there.  Figure out what's working and stick with that rather than get dragged into discussing issues like this. Many of us are involved, one way or another, whether in clubs, events or "just riding along", even when/because we are critical of the current situation.  Attacking events that are drawing in cyclists because they are not sanctioned is not going to win any friends or solve existing problems.  Lets focus on those.  Money is short.  People will choose.  Make it work and they will come.  Catering for just a few and then not doing it well (not supporting those racing overseas, for example) is not going to encourage any support from the majority who do not see any benefit for the license fee at all.