Downhill Riders,including current SA National Champ, overlooked for World Champs

[Irvin85]

57 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

Do you follow cricket? GM is like Shane Warne, a once in a few generations freak. Australia were wrist spin bedonnered for 15 years and none of the kids who came through the systems are even close to what he was.

 

GM is called the GOAT for a reason. I don't think CSA had much to do with his development and I doubt they would have found another one even if Patrice Motsepe put all his soccer money into downhill., but we did have 2 Grundig world cup events in stellenbosch that brought the world stage here at a crucial time in his development, which is probably a massive stroke of luck..

Exactly, a generational talent, his talent got seen at a very young age and got rewarded for his talent, hard work and sacrifices,

The SA champs this year had a total field of 29 riders. so we want to send 20% of the total SA field to the World champs. What a joke. If you are good enough chances are that someone will see your talent and you will get a opportunity to showcase it on the big stage. 

 

 

 

[Jewbacca]

So I remember there was a similar argument surrounding our Hockey team a few years ago.... We had qualified for something but by default. 

SASCOC decided to say 'the men's hockey team will not be going to X despite having qualified because they are crap'

They didn't go.

No one made an online petition and no one shed big tears because the truth was, our team was rubbish and wouldn't have made it out of the groups.

It's a logical decision. I really have no idea why some people are so butthurt that CSA hasn't chosen to select people who aren't good enough to compete. 

[Danger Dassie]

https://bikenetwork.co.za/csa-dont-see-this-from-a-riders-point-of-view/
 

“In response to the comments in the media by CyclingSA on the article we published on the Unusually small SA Team announced for UCI DH World Championships, the Chairperson of Western Cape Downhill has issued us with this statement. 

---

Western Cape Downhill is administered by a voluntary group of people, like it is across all cycling disciplines in CSA — in other words, we have normal day jobs and do this for the love of the sport. We represent the largest number of Downhill Racers in South Africa, but in relation to the other cycling disciplines, Downhill has a smaller contingent of participants.

We only became aware of the changes to the selection criteria for the South African Team (for the 2024 UCI Mountain Bike World Championships) in March 2024…..”

[ChrisF]

7 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

.....I really have no idea why some people are so butthurt that CSA hasn't chosen to select people who aren't good enough to compete. 

 

CSA is our common enemy, nobody remembers why, but they are reportedly useless ....

 

No matter what they say or do, it will be met with a social outcry and a special meeting of the pitchfork brigade ....

[Irvin85]

11 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

So I remember there was a similar argument surrounding our Hockey team a few years ago.... We had qualified for something but by default. 

SASCOC decided to say 'the men's hockey team will not be going to X despite having qualified because they are crap'

They didn't go.

No one made an online petition and no one shed big tears because the truth was, our team was rubbish and wouldn't have made it out of the groups.

It's a logical decision. I really have no idea why some people are so butthurt that CSA hasn't chosen to select people who aren't good enough to compete. 

I had a quick look at our current national downhill champ, he participated in 4 events this entire year, two of those were UCI events. He had a DNF and a 124th place in the UCI events. 

[Danger Dassie]

32 minutes ago, ChrisF said:

 

CSA is our common enemy, nobody remembers why, but they are reportedly useless ....

 

No matter what they say or do, it will be met with a social outcry and a special meeting of the pitchfork brigade ....

Chris, this is a patently dishonest characterisation of the topic raised and people involved, and only speaks to the lowest denominator of the discussion.

The underpinning issue at hand is a policy that raises concerns. The governing body claim it was acknowledged and adopted without protest. This is untrue, as we see in the statement from WC Downhill, the provincial body.

People who do actually have fundamental knowledge of DHI have reached out numerous times to assist, and get rejected. 

Regardless of what people thinks of the riders and the snide remarks about their character and potential, the sport deserves a better level of cooperation. 

It’s been encouraging to see Minnaar call out similar behaviour from people creating fake accounts. 

[Jewbacca]

12 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said:

Chris, this is a patently dishonest characterisation of the topic raised and people involved, and only speaks to the lowest denominator of the discussion.

The underpinning issue at hand is a policy that raises concerns. The governing body claim it was acknowledged and adopted without protest. This is untrue, as we see in the statement from WC Downhill, the provincial body.

People who do actually have fundamental knowledge of DHI have reached out numerous times to assist, and get rejected. 

Regardless of what people thinks of the riders and the snide remarks about their character and potential, the sport deserves a better level of cooperation. 

It’s been encouraging to see Minnaar call out similar behaviour from people creating fake accounts. 

By saying someone who isn't good enough, isn't good enough, is not snide nor is it bringing their character into question.

None of the snubbed riders are good enough to compete at World Champs. I'm sure they are the raddest of dudes, but they are simply not good enough to compete with the best in the world.

Also, why do we have 5 slots available? Who earned those slots? Did the snubbed riders accrue UCI points towards the available slots?

I want to see those details. From what I can see there are very few people NOT going who earned us UCI qualifying points. 

[Danger Dassie]

13 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

By saying someone who isn't good enough, isn't good enough, is not snide nor is it bringing their character into question.

None of the snubbed riders are good enough to compete at World Champs. I'm sure they are the raddest of dudes, but they are simply not good enough to compete with the best in the world.

Also, why do we have 5 slots available? Who earned those slots? Did the snubbed riders accrue UCI points towards the available slots?

I want to see those details. From what I can see there are very few people NOT going who earned us UCI qualifying points. 

You are twisting words. “Butthurt” and “Also rans” etc … are by their nature snide when used.

Further to that, take the time to read and absorb objectively the WCDH statement as well as some of the points raised by not only the riders, but also people who do actually have the knowledge and experience of the sport at hand, for example Myles Kelsey, Andrew Neething etc

 

[Jewbacca]

1 minute ago, Danger Dassie said:

You are twisting words. “Butthurt” and “Also rans” etc … are by their nature snide when used.

Further to that, take the time to read and absorb objectively the WCDH statement as well as some of the points raised by not only the riders, but also people who do actually have the knowledge and experience of the sport at hand, for example Myles Kelsey, Andrew Neething etc

 

Nonsense. I have been an 'also ran' at many many races. I'm honest enough to admit it. I will call myself not good/talented/accomplished enough to compete. 

Show me the people who earned the UCI points who aren't going. Then I might change my stance

[ChrisF]

47 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said:

Chris, this is a patently dishonest characterisation of the topic raised and people involved, and only speaks to the lowest denominator of the discussion.

The underpinning issue at hand is a policy that raises concerns. The governing body claim it was acknowledged and adopted without protest. This is untrue, as we see in the statement from WC Downhill, the provincial body.

People who do actually have fundamental knowledge of DHI have reached out numerous times to assist, and get rejected. 

Regardless of what people thinks of the riders and the snide remarks about their character and potential, the sport deserves a better level of cooperation. 

It’s been encouraging to see Minnaar call out similar behaviour from people creating fake accounts. 

 

Oooo come on.

 

YOU have been around long enough to KNOW what ITALICS are for.

 

 

 

Thus far I have ONE question post on this thread, which remains un-answered.

[DieselnDust]

I didn’t see snide remarks around character or ability. I did see a few facts relating to 2024 results. The emotional over reaction isn’t helping the understanding either.

CSA says they published the selection criteria in December. I recall this to be true as I paid for membership and in December and checked other documentation relating  to road selection. DH was there,

So how did WCDH only learn of

new criteria in March…? 
 

not really interested in what your name dropped spokes persons have said. I saw their reels already and those were as lacking in substance and high on emotions as the complaints posted here.

no one has offered answers in any media 

 

ps: it’s your cause so present it in a way that lays out the facts timelines , problem statement, solutions explored and solutions proposed. Don’t tell your reader to go and do their homework because then you’ve lost the cause. 

[Skubarra]

2 hours ago, Jewbacca said:

Also, why do we have 5 slots available? Who earned those slots? Did the snubbed riders accrue UCI points towards the available slots?

I really have no dog in this fight, but this confuses me. If there are 5 extra slots available, and those riders can sponsor themselves - what is the harm in filling those slots? Or phrased differently, what is CSA / SA Cycling gaining by not using those slots? As long as they are good enough not to be a danger to themselves or others I dont see the harm? If CSA have to foot the bill then I would understand not filling them.

[MORNE]

Gatekeeper syndrome, like the Karen on the body corporate…
it gives them great satisfaction being the enforcers. Its the case with almost any ‘national committee’ in any hobby/sport. They take your money for a license and pitch up to an event to tell you not to swear and to wear your helmet while on the bike or else, then you never see them again. Cushy gig…

20 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

I really have no dog in this fight, but this confuses me. If there are 5 extra slots available, and those riders can sponsor themselves - what is the harm in filling those slots? Or phrased differently, what is CSA / SA Cycling gaining by not using those slots? As long as they are good enough not to be a danger to themselves or others I dont see the harm? If CSA have to foot the bill then I would understand not filling them.

 

[DieselnDust]

23 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

I really have no dog in this fight, but this confuses me. If there are 5 extra slots available, and those riders can sponsor themselves - what is the harm in filling those slots? Or phrased differently, what is CSA / SA Cycling gaining by not using those slots? As long as they are good enough not to be a danger to themselves or others I dont see the harm? If CSA have to foot the bill then I would understand not filling them.

 

look at it another way that's maybe relatable.

Your company has access to 5 slots at a prestigious International conference. Its a Working event so SME's are gathering to discuss challenges in the industry .

They only have 1 SME qualified to go and a few part timers. The organiser of the Conference only wants the best minds in the industry there as its not a learning workshop but a problem solving one.

Company has its nominee lined up but the part timers are asking to go along as well and are willing to pay for themselves even though they will contribute nothing but they will have attendance on their CV.

Do you allow them to go but they will still have be under your company blessing and therefor disrespect the criteria for attendance or,

Don't allow them to go and respect the Conference organisers criteria for attendance?

[BaGearA]

Nobody wants to bring up the FACT that the riders asking for the exemption did NOT qualify.

 

And by saying that I'm somehow disparaging the riders.

 

Bowing out cause rationality is so far removed from what's constantly being asked here.

[Skubarra]

1 hour ago, DieselnDust said:

 

look at it another way that's maybe relatable.

Your company has access to 5 slots at a prestigious International conference. Its a Working event so SME's are gathering to discuss challenges in the industry .

They only have 1 SME qualified to go and a few part timers. The organiser of the Conference only wants the best minds in the industry there as its not a learning workshop but a problem solving one.

Company has its nominee lined up but the part timers are asking to go along as well and are willing to pay for themselves even though they will contribute nothing but they will have attendance on their CV.

Do you allow them to go but they will still have be under your company blessing and therefor disrespect the criteria for attendance or,

Don't allow them to go and respect the Conference organisers criteria for attendance?

Do they meet the criteria of the UCI? If not I don't know why this is a discussion, but if they do then back to my original question, what do CSA gain by having a more stringent criteria than the UCI? Is there an arrangement where UCI criteria is ambigious but local organisers are expected to be gatekeepers applying their own judgment? 

Edited July 17 by Skubarra