Homeschoolers Not Welcome at Spur MTB League

[PygaSchmyga]

I posted something a few days ago that was misconstrued and not 'fonted' properly so let me clarify.

 

As a coach, one of the most frustrating things if all. Is the intractability of parents. I have just gone through a ridiculous set of circumstances where a national level event was mostly ruined by a parent who was unable to understand that the WANTS of an individual cannot interfere with the NEEDS of the team, or that the parent wasn't wrong about a specific circumstance.

 

I have no comment at all about the merits of home-schooling one way or the other. Separate that out straight away.

 

I am only going to use logic here.

 

1) in any competition, the rules are structured in a way to benefit the majority and to provide a safe environment for optimal performance. In Aus hey have actually just stopped up to 13year old boys from competing nationally to prevent long-term performance issues. They have also banned performance kit for all 12 amd unders to keep the ongoing war for minimal performance improvements at massive cost down to a reasonable age.

 

But 13 year old girls can compete still as they are 'more mature' than boys. Physically, yes, but to bitter experience, emotionally no (see above)

 

The point is 'wanting' someone to compete is not the same as 'needing' them.

 

In this home-school situation, in the specific situation, which Meurant did put succinctly, it does not appear that the child needs to compete. There are other alternatives, and any exclusion is for the enhancement of the sport in a team environment, and the parent has decided to exclude the child from a team. The 'I want her to be part of a team' is not the organisers issue, it is the parent's.

 

2) the Exclusion/Prejudice angle

 

The second principal is whether or not their is prejudice to home schools in Gauteng, and whether the treatment of home-schoolers by other provinces is even relevant to the discussion.

 

If the issue is numbers in Gauteng, then there is NO discussion. Every single league in every sport has category adjustments if the numbers are too large. English Premier League, Super 15,whatever. It isn't good enough to say 'My son wants to play for XYZ' when you have deliberately chosen to live in the area of PQR.

 

BUT: if the child is good enough, as this young lady appears to be, and could play for Man U, the parent can't complain if they only want to play for Anonymous United.

 

3) Now that is a team sport environment, which is slightly different I know, so let's take athlwtics. At the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the World Student Games, the South African Champs - somewhere down that spectrum the numbers become small enough that the teams themselves become representative of the full talent base.

 

By that I mean there can be 10 Americans all faster than the first Kazakh, or whatever. So they have restricted access - at the Olympics to 2/3, at Commonwealth to 4, etc. At some point the numbers are few enough that there may be just a time based qualification and as many who qualify can compete. But you cannot complain if you want to get to the final and there are 4 Aussies in your way at the Comm Games and you are in a team of one, and don't meet the qualifying criteria (even if that criteria is not performance based, like you are from Kazakhstan)

 

I guess what I am saying is life ain't fair.

 

But now, number 4:

 

And this is the only where I may turn to defend the participation of this young lady:

- I do not know the full numbers issue, Meurant does say there are concerns in Gauteng

- I do not know if they limit current competing school team sizes (eg do the top Gauteng schools have to have a team of 4, say, or can any number of kids from that school compete?)

- do the schools themselves provide assistance to the infrastructure of the series in terms of capital/officials/development/sustainability/representivity, especially in South Africa. This may be controversial but, EVEN IN MY EXPERIENCE HERE, it is the more weathly, private school parents who give less of a sh=t about the team and social requirements and more about their own darling child, to the detriment to the sport AND their own child's development. Home schoolers may be very nice people, but unless they, as a group abide with the social requirements they will cause issues.

I will take a minor bet that a 'team' of individuals with personal agendas will be a disaster, and that is why 'ghost riding' is more logical, if possible.

 

 

My summary is that most arguments on this thread have been black and white. Under certain conditions, in situations where the participation numberscan be controlled (for now) I would say there is no harm for this young lady to participate. But that may not be the case, or may not become the case. I hope Mr Green is flexible enough to understand the organiser's intent with the series and not to try force a round peg. The wants of his SPECIFIC child do not outweigh the list of needs for the sport in Gauteng. But he does have a right to have had that explained to him, and if a solution can be mutually found, good luck.

 

What I do not get though, through all of this is how the hell are people that stupid that they go after the sponsor especially when the issue is not as simple as it appears? What a bunch of total, utter morons.

 

It must be the education system.

Excellent comment. 

 

With respect to the red bit above, I lost all respect for the OP when it became clear that he rallied the HS mob who came out in force and attacked Spur.    He claimed to be "solution seeking" and "did not personally" call for attacks on Spur, but then cried to all HS parents far and wide (none of whose kids rode) about how the Spur series was discrininatory, when he knew FULL WELL Spur did not make the rules.  He knew what he was doing, and to be fair, it worked for him.

 

The hub is not fb, Mr OP, people actually think and engage here.  I have not ONCE seen you calling out your gang of attackers for their behaviour.  True colours.

Edited May 13, 2018 by PygaSchmyga

[Jewbacca]

http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2016/11/when-disagreement-gets-ugly-perceptions.html

 

Some of you here are very conceited. Just because Meurant says it, doesn't make it right.

 

Also, look beyond the OP. There are probably more people excluded than just 1 girl in 1 isolated incident. Spur bashing aside, that is not cool, the main discussion point here is the exclusion of kids.

 

KIDS. 

 

It's funny reading through this how lost the topic actually is by guys blinded by 'being right' on bikehub and pushing their own experiences as absolute truth.

 

I still think it's sad that kids are excluded. I think it's more sad how some adults on here have taken a sick pleasure in being down right nasty and destructive. 

[SwissVan]

I am amazed that there are still people out there supporting the spur brand. Amazing!

Normally the sponsor does not make the rules, not knowing this particular case I stand to be corrected BUT coming into the debate with preconceived issues against the sponsor is hardly conducive to finding a solution.

 

Yes the sponsor could apply pressure to influence changes to the rules, but burning the sponsor is not going to benefit the sport or the kids.

 

Without reading the whole thread, why can’t they allow all the home schooled kids to compete as one team I.e. “team home schooled” instead of what some provinces are doing by allowing them to ride for a normal school in their area? If there is only one HS kid then it’s a one person team.... simple!

[Thor Buttox]

http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2016/11/when-disagreement-gets-ugly-perceptions.html

 

Some of you here are very conceited. Just because Meurant says it, doesn't make it right.

 

Also, look beyond the OP. There are probably more people excluded than just 1 girl in 1 isolated incident. Spur bashing aside, that is not cool, the main discussion point here is the exclusion of kids.

 

KIDS.

 

It's funny reading through this how lost the topic actually is by guys blinded by 'being right' on bikehub and pushing their own experiences as absolute truth.

 

I still think it's sad that kids are excluded. I think it's more sad how some adults on here have taken a sick pleasure in being down right nasty and destructive.

None of us can be right because we don't know the full circumstances. All we can do is follow a progression of thought to attempt a conclusion.

 

Kids are excluded every single day, be it through lack of resources, illness, not being invited to their mate's party, etc, etc. They are a helluva lot stronger than we adults give them credit for.

 

My day to day work life is the participation of kids in sport - so if you were referring to me as conceited, I humbly suggest my experience is vaguely relevant as I have recently been involved in a situation almost exactly as described but within my club environment.

 

I spent 3 days trying to resolve the inclusion of a 17 year old who I wanted desperately to participate in a national event because she has been exemplary in her application and training but had some very bad luck. In the end I had to make a very difficult call to do the right thing for the team in the circumstance (in consultation with the Club's Board). It sucked, but it was the right thing to do in hindsight. Another hockey trip managed by someone I know also went hideously pear when a second goalie was taken and received no game time, which then turned into a huge debacle as the parents were, maybe rightly, peed off. But at a National level do you play your best team or do you just try to please everyone? As I said, exclusion happens all the time - it is the purpose that needs consideration.

 

(Just to be clear, I am actually the bleeding-heart libtard who wants every kid to succeed - I am not exclusionary at all. I have just had to realise the practicalities of real life.)

 

Actually given other situations I have faced, I'd go so far as to say participation, in general, is not a right. There are obligations that come with it, be it to the sport, your family, to other participants, the social context, etc. Emphasis on 'in general' and not the specific case here.

 

Either way there is far more nuance to the actual participation argument than what has been discussed here, but I hope the organisers can find a satisfactory compromise in this circumstance.

[scotty]

Normally the sponsor does not make the rules, not knowing this particular case I stand to be corrected BUT coming into the debate with preconceived issues against the sponsor is hardly conducive to finding a solution.

 

Yes the sponsor could apply pressure to influence changes to the rules, but burning the sponsor is not going to benefit the sport or the kids.

 

Without reading the whole thread, why can’t they allow all the home schooled kids to compete as one team I.e. “team home schooled” instead of what some provinces are doing by allowing them to ride for a normal school in their area? If there is only one HS kid then it’s a one person team.... simple!

The organizers AND the OP are speaking to each other to resolve it, instead of letting them get on with it people keep flaming it, bad OP and adding their 2c reason why, bad org and adding their 2c reason why.

[LeoKnight]

Either way, I am off to the spur this afternoon, of to support them for that they do do for sport in general

[BaGearA]

I'm gona die laughing when the parents hear spur is dropping the series 

 

 

... then what about the 30000+ kids that looked forward to the event every year , i highly doubt they'll get another sponsor who  can put up the type of money spur can and even if they do that company/person will see the mentality of the parents and boom no more school series 

[Slowbee]

Excellent comment. 

 

With respect to the red bit above, I lost all respect for the OP when it became clear that he rallied the HS mob who came out in force and attacked Spur.    He claimed to be "solution seeking" and "did not personally" call for attacks on Spur, but then cried to all HS parents far and wide (none of whose kids rode) about how the Spur series was discrininatory, when he knew FULL WELL Spur did not make the rules.  He knew what he was doing, and to be fair, it worked for him.

 

The hub is not fb, Mr OP, people actually think and engage here.  I have not ONCE seen you calling out your gang of attackers for their behaviour.  True colours.

You have repeated the same comment throughout this thread and your bashing of the home schooling group is getting a bit much.

 

The Spur series as run in Gauteng has a rule that excludes home schooled children from participation. That rule is not right. Yes it is a rule, but it is not right. If we cannot agree on that then there is no more need for discussion.

 

To take Thor's example from previous posts, there is a difference between selection and rules being in place preventing inclusion.

 

In terms of a bigger picture, are you saying that just because the masses stand to loose, we must allow rules that are not right?

[Slowbee]

I'm gona die laughing when the parents hear spur is dropping the series 

 

 

... then what about the 30000+ kids that looked forward to the event every year , i highly doubt they'll get another sponsor who  can put up the type of money spur can and even if they do that company/person will see the mentality of the parents and boom no more school series 

I am sure there would be one or two other sponsors who would take up the chance to sponsor such a league.

 

It would be short sighted to say without Spur the league comes to an end. Might be tricky for a while and things might change, but another sponsor could be found. The league as a brand has built a good reputation.

 

#couldbewrong

[nickc]

I am sure there would be one or two other sponsors who would take up the chance to sponsor such a league.

 

It would be short sighted to say without Spur the league comes to an end. Might be tricky for a while and things might change, but another sponsor could be found. The league as a brand has built a good reputation.

 

#couldbewrong

 

 

So at the Spur event today in Vereeniging during the prize giving they asked for a show of hands all those who thought that home schoolers should be allowed to compete. I promptly put up my hand and according to the announcer there were three of us

It was a large crowd at the prize giving so it was not an overwhelming show of support unfortuantly. They did however say they were inviting comments on it via their FB page and Website.   

 

Referring to my original post above the fact that they are inviting comments on the whole issue and that they referred to it during the post race event means that someone has sat up and taken note.

 

I must also add to my original post that when they asked for a show of hands who thinks that Home Schoolers should not be allowed to compete there was also only a couple of hands.

I would appear the fast majority are not worried about it either way.

 

It is a massive series - in fact so big in Gauteng they have had to split it into different groups competing on different days to accommodate everyone. I am sure they can then find a way to accommodate the Home Schooling Contingent, especially as its been done in the other provinces.

 

Given the level of enthusiasm amongst the hundreds of kids there and the massive input from Spur I would hate to see their sponsorship affected in any way.

 

       

Edited May 13, 2018 by nickc

[Jewbacca]

 

My day to day work life is the participation of kids in sport - so if you were referring to me as conceited, I humbly suggest my experience is vaguely relevant as I have recently been involved in a situation almost exactly as described but within my club environment.

I agree. I wasn't having a dig at you, don't worry. More at people making brash, rude comments about home schooling, as well as those bashing Spur AND those glibly jumping on the 'see, Meurant says so so shut your pie hole you bla bla' type.

 

There has been some pretty personal nastyness as well as destructive comments from both sides. I get that exclusion happens every day, but this isn't a case of circumstance. This is a case of willing parents, willing, equipped child and 1 league, the only league out of 5 (I think) where she can't.

 

Rules exist, but like I said earlier, not all rules are right. I don't really agree with how this has progressed with the baying of blood and as soon as the word 'boycott' is used because someone isn't getting their way my blood boils.

 

I just think that the thread was derailed by people making brazen, ill conceived comments about 'the rich' and 'home school' parents and children. 

 

Some Hubbers showed their true colours in this thread and they are not pretty. 

[Slowbee]

Some Hubbers showed their true colours in this thread and they are not pretty. 

THANKS !!!!! Now I have to go to lunch with cyndie screaming true colours in my head while trying to smile.

 

At least the wine is good.

[Jewbacca]

THANKS !!!!! Now I have to go to lunch with cyndie screaming true colours in my head while trying to smile.

 

At least the wine is good.

You with the sad eyes... Don't be discouraged 

[Tim Brink]

You with the sad eyes... Don't be discouraged 

Leave him be. He just wants to have fun.

[PygaSchmyga]

You have repeated the same comment throughout this thread and your bashing of the home schooling group is getting a bit much.

 

i have objected to homeschoolers coming out in force and calling for boycotts against spur, and notably those who have nothing to do with cycling, (the vast majority of those that attacked the Spur fb page). 

 

How is this bashing HS? Have you even read my comments?  Your comment above feels more like a rebuke arising from a complaint, as your hub comments are normally more informed.  Let OP moan directly to me if he thinks he has been unfairly characterized.

 

 

The Spur series as run in Gauteng has a rule that excludes home schooled children from participation. That rule is not right. Yes it is a rule, but it is not right. If we cannot agree on that then there is no more need for discussion.

 

So you justify the destruction, or at least calls for the destruction of a very successful system benefiting tens of thousands of kids because the system is not 100% perfect, and has not been able to cater for every single eventuality?

 

Sure, the rule is unfair - i made that clear in my initial comments.  Attacking the sponsor and threatening them with economic sanction is also not right.  Hierarchies exist in life, and reasonable people would agree that this is the greater wrong.

 

To use your words, If we cannot agree on that then there is no more need for discussion.

 

 

To take Thor's example from previous posts, there is a difference between selection and rules being in place preventing inclusion.

 

In terms of a bigger picture, are you saying that just because the masses stand to loose, we must allow rules that are not right? 

[Naas Vermaak]

Nobody said that, but they could obviously train from 5am til 9am and then start their school day...

Well, isn't that what our country need in order to stop being nowhere in the Cape Epic or UCI XCO races....dedicated riders with natural potential?