CSA fining members for riding choc mtb

[Patchelicious]

Mr Google have a lot of references though of different countries cycling bodies warning cyclists about entering unsanctioned races so I think it is slightly misleading to say it is only a thing in SA.

 

CSA also didn't publicly punish the riders so nobody would have known until someone complained on the hub, would probably be a similar situation in other countries.

 

Look, it's a stupid rule and I'm certain not applied consistently but it is also a bit of a storm in a tea cup as this only affects a tiny portion of cyclists.

That’s the point, the PR fallout and further brand damage is simply not worth it for them because of the fact that it affects so few cyclist. They are hardly generating extra income and they are hardly teaching people a lesson.

 

This simply further illustrates that their management need to get with the times. Fining people into submission is hardly an effective method these days.

[Rouxenator]

CSA, like ASA and any other instance of our government should be avoided at all cost. I'm happy to pay my PPA membership every year because I enjoy their rides. CSA does nothing. 

[gogo@]

If you focus on the rider who is fined, then it's a "small" issue. But put that fine in its context, and it affects cycling as a whole.  That's the point.

[Slowbee]

Has anyone sent an email to CSA to get some "clarification" on this issue ?

[Rolling Stone]

I think that CSA is managing to draw attention to the sanctioning of races. And the guys here on the hub are playing their part.

The fact that many races are not sanctioned, this is not always highlighted by race organizers and 10,000 odd CSA members do not always think to check. Only when they have a crash and want to claim do they realize that they are not covered because races are not sanctioned. Or when they get fined, I would not be surprised at all if Licensed riders enter a race thinking that it is sanctioned and then get a nasty surprise from CSA.

Also draws some attention to the value of a CSA membership (Not a racing License necessarily)

All in all, good PR and marketing for CSA I think.

The effort of dishing out a R750 fine and suspension is surely not worth their while when you think of the time and effort that goes into the whole process

[Gr3mlin131]

Is there actually any value in getting a CSA membership? I just get the day licenses when needed and for my couple of races a year it costs me less than a CSA membership would have.

[Barend de Arend]

I think that CSA is managing to draw attention to the sanctioning of races. And the guys here on the hub are playing their part.

The fact that many races are not sanctioned, this is not always highlighted by race organizers and 10,000 odd CSA members do not always think to check. Only when they have a crash and want to claim do they realize that they are not covered because races are not sanctioned. Or when they get fined, I would not be surprised at all if Licensed riders enter a race thinking that it is sanctioned and then get a nasty surprise from CSA.

Also draws some attention to the value of a CSA membership (Not a racing License necessarily)

All in all, good PR and marketing for CSA I think.

The effort of dishing out a R750 fine and suspension is surely not worth their while when you think of the time and effort that goes into the whole process

 

Good PR and marketing is advertising the positive.

 

For example: Advertise that they helped someone reach worlds (they didn't help), advertise that they have insurance (for many months they didn't), that they do dope testing (9 out of 10 races I don't see that) that they have a commissaire (often they don't) for every race category (hah!) and that they've checked that the route complies with UCI rules (they don't do that either.)

 

If they want to get races sanctioned make it so races want to get sanctioned, and that sanctioned races want to advertise they're sanctioned and that riders want to do sanctioned races.

 

Maybe clarify why the rule exists.  And no, you can't say "big brother UCI said so."

 

What they did here is bad PR.  They highlighted that they punish.  All stick, no carrot.

[Rolling Stone]

Race organizers hide behind the "We are doing something for Charity" banner.

So how do races like 94.7, Tswane Classic,  Carnival City, Cradle Mountain Trophy, Wilro Lions cycle Challenge, to name just a few in our area still manage to support their charities as well as CSA.

 

Personally I will not support a race that does not support CSA(And their local regional body) To me they are saying, we like to make money out of cycling, but we do not care about the organised side of the sport and about our elite cyclists that have to self fund, or development of cycling for that matter.

[Rouxenator]

CSA does very little for cycling, especially when compared to PPA and other private instances. 

[Barend de Arend]

 To me they are saying, we like to make money out of cycling, but we do not care about the organised side of the sport and about our elite cyclists that have to self fund, or development of cycling for that matter.

 

To me that's what CSA is doing.  Prove me wrong.

[Rolling Stone]

Is there actually any value in getting a CSA membership? I just get the day licenses when needed and for my couple of races a year it costs me less than a CSA membership would have.

 R250 a year for a membership? and that includes some medical cover for that day that things go wrong.

 

But day license is also ok, 2/3 of that goes to your region and not to CSA as such.

[Shebeen]

Mr Google have a lot of references though of different countries cycling bodies warning cyclists about entering unsanctioned races so I think it is slightly misleading to say it is only a thing in SA.

 

CSA also didn't publicly punish the riders so nobody would have known until someone complained on the hub, would probably be a similar situation in other countries.

 

Look, it's a stupid rule and I'm certain not applied consistently but it is also a bit of a storm in a tea cup as this only affects a tiny portion of cyclists.

see answer below yours, the rule was suspended/reinstated, and brought back in 2015.

I can't find anyone else saying anything since it being reinstated.

 

except just CSA

remember they wanted to BAN cavendish from coming to race in ZA

https://www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/cycle-tour-faces-ban-on-top-riders-1820800

 

I'm assuming the actual point of this dumb rule is to stop elite riders from joining a breakaway organisation from poaching them, they want to keep all the riders racing under their control. The funny thing is that the wording is 

Forbidden races 1.2.019 No licence holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognised by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI. 

 It doesn't say "cycling event". So anything from a charity fun run to the World Cup Soccer is an event...lamest open ended rule i ever did see.

 

But here's some elite pro riders doing non UCI races this year

Sagzbaby and G doing post TdF crits in their jerseys

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2018/07/29/1/gettyimages_1007222230_670.jpg

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/peter-sagan-and-geraint-thomas-join-lucrative-post-tour-crit-circuit/

 

 

an example of roadriders doing a non sanctioned MTB race (won this year by UCI elite Howard Grotts)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dombrowski-to-ride-leadville-mountain-bike-race-before-the-vuelta-a-espana/

[Rouxenator]

 R250 a year for a membership? and that includes some medical cover for that day that things go wrong.

 

But day license is also ok, 2/3 of that goes to your region and not to CSA as such.

It's the principal of the matter. I do not want them to get my money - at all. 

[Andrew Steer]

CSA does very little for cycling, especially when compared to PPA and other private instances. 

Well done... we don't all live in the Cape last I checked.

 

Are PPA UCI accredited? Can they pick a national team?

 

It really is great fun going around in circles... 

 

This is a UCI rule.

 

The CSA should always enforce it. Maybe they are going to be more consistent - there has been quite a bit of this of late.

 

Races should be sanctioned in my books for the greater good. A strong CSA, love them or hate them, is good for the long term interests of professional cyclists and just general cycling in SA too.

 

It has nothing to do with charity. Almost all races raise funds for charity. Lekker sensational hub story line.

 

Yes, the CSA needs money, else we will be complaining forever that they don't pay for riders to compete internationally, do more for rider safety etc etc

 

I've still not seen the master plan to 'replace' them? Just the usual 'burn it all down' diatribe with no plan or way out.

 

Yes we want more from them, yes they could do better - but we kind of have to give them the chance to do so as well.

[Jimmy 2.0]

i had the same problem with my 2017 Karoo 2 coast had to pay R750 and also got a 3month ban.

[Rouxenator]

UCI? Those dimwits making cycling the most boring sport to watch? Don't care much for them either. 

 

Please understand that there are far more people that want to ride than race. When given the option I always chose to ride and not race.